besides the entire point of my original post was merely to point out that all people do on these forums is give yahtzee a backslap and a high five with any attempt at an alternate view point being immeadietly shot down, albeit my first post was also to see how much fun i could have doing this and so far i haven't been disappointed.
Zero Punctuation: Halo 3
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I totally agree with you. It was a moderate game, nothing special. I don't see why people like this game so damn much when there is obvious better choices out there. And me, I prefer single player mode over multiplayer (mostly due to the fact that if I lose I get t-bagged by immature children) and partially due to the fact that some people don't have other things to do in life than memorize ALL the Halo map setups, and learn every little quirk of the game and claim to be "experts." No... it just meant you didn't have a job, you didn't have a life, so you spent all day just learning everything you could about this thing. Overall, Halo is a rent. Or at least play it at a friends house, but don't bother to give into the hype people.
And one more thing, if your going to put in "realism", don't make the whole game look like a flipping cartoon. Halo 2 was more realistic looking than this.
And one more thing, if your going to put in "realism", don't make the whole game look like a flipping cartoon. Halo 2 was more realistic looking than this.
@katsabas: Most seuqals don't explain the past story, some will talk about a few things that happened but not much mainly due to the fact they expect the people that buy it to have already tried the first game. Its like books and movies - you don't go and watch the last film of the trilogy without watching the first or at least having someone explain whats going on.
I like halo mainly do to the fact that its different, it actually has colour unlike most fps that come out that go dark,grey,brown and maybe hints of colour then of course red blood splats. I know its not perfect but most game aren't. Also when it come to comparing some games together like bioshock and halo its unfair as they both have different selling points. Bioshock want to me more a a adventure/rpg fps while halo want to finish the story for people that have played the last to games as well a give them a online gaming experience - the reason they've done this is mainly do the the fact that most halo fans like the multiplayer. Of course this doesn't suit everyone, no game can do that.
I like halo mainly do to the fact that its different, it actually has colour unlike most fps that come out that go dark,grey,brown and maybe hints of colour then of course red blood splats. I know its not perfect but most game aren't. Also when it come to comparing some games together like bioshock and halo its unfair as they both have different selling points. Bioshock want to me more a a adventure/rpg fps while halo want to finish the story for people that have played the last to games as well a give them a online gaming experience - the reason they've done this is mainly do the the fact that most halo fans like the multiplayer. Of course this doesn't suit everyone, no game can do that.
Of course, Half Life 2 defiantly wins the title out of the two. Halo is "go in, stop the explosion, and get out." Half Life is full of mystery, and the story is told while your still in game. What told me "Your playing something you've never played before." Is when the guard hit the can to the floor, telling me to pick it up. That was right at the beginning too! Sure, it was a tutorial pretty much, but later things like that still occur. Your talking to a man in a safe house, when all the sudden you hear something coming, making the earth shake. Looking around, your still not sure what to do (least I wasn't) till they started screaming about how the walkers were here. Getting the rocket launcher, I come outside in time to watch a man get flattened by on of the things pole like legs.nilpferdkoenig said:
Halo 3 on the other hand, just makes you drag through AWFUL "cutscenes" (if you can call them that)where that cyber girl and that Flood thing talk to you while your walking, forcing you to slow down and drag through it. It doesn't really involve you, it's not necessary, just let me shoot stuff at my own freaking pace.
H3 is a decent shooter but no where near the Second Coming status it is given by its blind fanboy following.
So you have gone from stop comparing Halo to half-life to why half-life is better. That is just amazing truly.Spongeman25 said:
If you're reviewing Halo 3, you have an Xbox 360... and both earlier Halo titles work on the 360 for no extra charge so long as you have any form of access to the Internet (and a CD writer, if you don't have Live). Cost is no reason to avoid viewing 1 & 2 if you're playing 3.katsabas said:
-- Steve
I thank you, Yahtzee, for A) Holding back on a Halo 3 review until it was screamed for and B) Not upping the final decision to please the drooling fanboys on this series. As you said, it's not bad, just average, my biggest complaint is that while multiplayer is fun, you can only mix up the weapons, number of players and maps so many times before it gets undeniably dull. The Forge option to customize maps helps offset this a bit, but not enough to to break it entirely, unfortunately.
Sums it up quite well. In fact I'd even take it a step further to label Halo as being almost perfectly average, except as Yahtzee said, for it's own degree of pretentiousness. So, before I go further, thank you Yahtzee for being one of the few reviewers to place this game where it belongs.Axel Foley said:
Let's put down a simple scale to show what an fps is about.
G.O.R.E was a terrible fps. Graphics, story, audio, and "characters" were absolutely uninspired. Graphics could only be compared to an uglier Quake 2, the story was basically some corporation vs. an organized crime mod, and everything else followed a similar level of "drag and drop from cliche island." In particular, characterization and voice acting were so utterly unoriginal they made me want to hurt someone. This is from someone who LIKES the underdog.
Halo is an average fps. Humanity is getting its ass kicked and in danger of outright extinction at the hands of some technologically superior alien race. It seems that almost every science fiction storyline ever created is required to have this feature so let us move on. In order to battle the alien menace they create some kind of super-soldier (again, hardly original) but even that isn't enough so they have to go and uncover the super-relic-left-by-ancient-extinct-race to end the war (again not original). Some more stuff likely happened after that, but frankly, even the world's greatest ending can't carry the entire story. The weapons are to a letter standard fare, even weapons like the needler have featured extensively in existing sci-fi universes (unlike PainKiller). The levels seem to account for every major "requisite" theme that every new game simply must have; from generic desert environment to ancient foresty thing without much truly original (unlike... ok, almost every game is guilty of this sin). The levels flow well and are fun to play in multiplayer, but quite frankly, the same goes for Unreal Tournament and even Quake. Graphics were good, if overly bright, but not to the point where I felt like I was viewing a work of art (unlike Crysis see below). Halo's major edge - and for many, it *is* a big edge, is that it is dead easy to pick up and play, making it ideal for group gatherings, but this isn't enough to make up for the mediocrity of the rest of the game.
Half-Life 2 is a superb fps. Much as I'd like to sit here and say the story was original, it wasn't. What the story is, is standard cyber-punk fare. The time spent in City 17 is especially gritty in atmosphere, and really has many great moments. In particular, when you are called out of the crowd near the beginning, without a weapon, and taken off to a detainment room, your mind is either a) panicking, or b) racing MacGyver style to figure a way out of your current predicament. Like with the pop can incident where you'd like nothing more to slug the arrogant jerk who demands you pick it up for him but hold your anger to avoid blowing your cover, you are immersed. You are experiencing something new. More then any other reason, these experiences are what made Half-Life 1 great, and are what make Half-Life 2 great. And it is the quality and wealth of these moments that make it a superior single-player experience, and all around, a better game then Halo.
Crysis is not a perfect fps, but it is currently my favorite. The storyline was not original, but it was certainly fun enough. Difficulty allowed for the Koreans to actually speak Korean (if set high enough), and cloaking only to appear an inch from a guys face, grab him, and throw him into a group of his fellows never got old. It's true that the suit was a gimmick, I don't deny that. But it was a deep enough gimmick to allow for new and interesting strategies. Like Half-Life, this game also had many awesomely innovative moments. What makes it all the more fun is that many of these moments are not scripted out - for example, the first time you experiment with suit powers to pick up one soldier and throw him into another. In addition, the boss battle set atop a besieged aircraft carrier in the rain can only be described as totally freaking awesome. Before you ask, yes, the graphics look so bloody good it made me shed a tear.
More then anything else, I find it incomprehensible that so average a game as Halo would have such an idiotic level of fan worship. I can find no other way to describe it. They almost had to shut college down for the day - "Halo release day" was like some bloody unofficial holiday. Half of me expected overjoyed students to start hugging one another and start singing about universal love and happiness while the middle east would just bury the hatchet and go play Halo matches together instead.
Have you all read/played the whole story? Including any of the novels? No, then stop saying the story is crap before you even see the whole thing. Thats like saying the Nazis are nice by seeing Hitler was a vegetarian. I'll admit the story according to the games alone is bland indeed and you may rightly crucify it for such, but having read the novels and the WHOLE back story I find it to be a truly good story indeed, much more so than Half Life.(@HeavyBlade)
Bibbles. Hmm. You read the novels? Whoop-de-do. I'll fill in some more for Yahtzee then. I never finished the first game because it bored me too damn much. I'd only go back now and complete it if someone paid me to as a game reviewer. Which I'm not. So I don't have to finish Halo, and therefore won't have to wash my retinas out with methylated spirits and rusty steel wool just have something not-boring to look forward to.
Yahtzee, I first found your game reviews when I went searching for a review that didn't like Halo, so as far as that goes I suppose I must thank microsoft for making such an appalling game that you then hung drew and quartered and posted the results on the net so that I could find them. (and yes, I know the review was on Halo 3, but I'm going to believe that they are all tarred with the same brush and don't care)
Microsoft, congratulations - you have discovered what generates fans. Mediocrity. Lowest common denominator. Nothing challenging. Nothing unexpected. Pretty colours and flashy graphics and a gun. Yahtzee didn't lower his standards. Bioshock good, Halo bad.
End.
MF.
Yahtzee, I first found your game reviews when I went searching for a review that didn't like Halo, so as far as that goes I suppose I must thank microsoft for making such an appalling game that you then hung drew and quartered and posted the results on the net so that I could find them. (and yes, I know the review was on Halo 3, but I'm going to believe that they are all tarred with the same brush and don't care)
Microsoft, congratulations - you have discovered what generates fans. Mediocrity. Lowest common denominator. Nothing challenging. Nothing unexpected. Pretty colours and flashy graphics and a gun. Yahtzee didn't lower his standards. Bioshock good, Halo bad.
End.
MF.
Yea, like 5 now. Plus a graphic novel. A movie, sometime in the nearish future. And an RTS eventually.
I really didn't feel like reopening this old thread but a mod locked the thread I made and suggested that I post here so. . .
I never expected Yahtzee to like very much Halo 3, his taste in games has been established as confined to games too concerned with their great story or originality to be very worried about actually being fun. He did bash the series a little before but I always assumed it was for cheap laughs.
Overall, and I think most will agree, Zero Punctuation on Halo 3 is one of Yahtzee's worst reviews. The best joke is in the third sentence ("Jewel encrusted golden gift from the treasure vaults of Xerxes," if you don't remember, unless you like "Quad era demonstandum, said Yahtzee like the big literary fag that he is." better.) Now to compartmentalize the review for review.
First Yahtzee discusses story, citing that he has never played a Halo game and lacks the backstory. It seems to me that if he really felt he needed backstory to fully appreciate the game that he intends to provide a hopefully non-biased review of then he could have found it easily on the Internet. It would take less than five minutes to pull up the appropriate articles on Wikipedia and 20-40 minutes to read the plot summary. And there, you have backstory.
He then moves on to what he figured out without backstory: Master Chief always wears armor, has friend who is the black guy from Predator, evil aliens invade Earth, for some reason some aliens aren't evil, other aliens that are headcrab copies, rings in space that kill things, a twelve-year-old-girl started talking so I stopped caring. It's really a shame that he stopped caring because he might have found it intriguing. I hardly think Miranda Keyes is even reminiscent of a twelve-year-old girl, I think he was just looking for an excuse to skip the rest of the cutscene and all others hereafter so that he could be quickly done with this game he had already decided to hate. The one valid point he made (from the stand-point of this being a review of a game) was that the story was difficult to follow without backstory. As I've said before this is easily addressed and it's not really bad for the designers of a sequel to expect the player to have played the previous installments. And I feel that Yahtzee has taken his love of Half-Life too far, the Flood and headcrabs are not at all ascetically similar. Flood forms are rotting corpses while headcrab zombies are mutated but obviously alive, the only real similarity he could have noticed is that both are "space zombies." This alone is hardly enough to call the Flood "headcrabs in disguise."
Next he complains about how bright and colorful the game is. I never really understood why he would say this (other than finding another thing to bash the game about), most eyes like candy. Looking at more recent reviews I find that Yahtzee complains as much as is reasonable about the drab color schemes of most next-gen games. So when a game is drab and dull he hates it and when a game is bright and colorful he also hates it. I suppose he likes dull and colorful, but I'd rather have the visuals set the right atmosphere than appeal to my ascetic tastes.
His next complaint is that Halo 3 is schizophrenic (as he said) or inconsistent (as he wrote), alternating between moody sci-fi horror and somewhat light-hearted sci-fi action (though he described the latter as "midget aliens running around stupidly acting like Ewoks making *finger quotes* wacky dialogue"). I won't even go into his take on Grunts because Yahtzee seems to fall into the common "intellectual" trap of "I'm smart so I can't laught at childish humor." But as for the schizophrenia, he later praises CoD 4 for changing between gun-ho pitched battle and sneaky stealth combat. The alternation in Halo 3 is similar (though admitedly more extreme) and it's not like it takes 10 hours to establish a mood, 20 minutes is more than enough to create an atmosphere.
Now: "Most of the weapons are manufactured by Matel." Hmm, most of the weapons are either UNSC or Brute, drab and practical. Only Covenant weapons are colorful and even remotely resemble toys, but it fits the Covenant mentality that war and violence are arts, not a necessities, and that their instruments should be works of art themselves. I guess trying to do things a little differently is wrong . . . wait, Yahtzee liked Psychonaughts?! That game was totally different from most things, and gameplay suffered for it.
Next "problem." Inconsistent difficulty curve. I'll guess Yahtzee played on Heroic to spot this issue. On Normal the difficulty curve is nearly perfect and is the best for training. Heroic is optimized for fun throughout (while missions get overall harder sections of them don't necessarily follow the trend), not teaching Halo noobs how to play. Yahtzee seemed to think that the end was too easy, saying that Guilty Spark was a pushover, ignoring the punishingly difficult pyramid climb immediatly before it and the exhilerating run for your life immediatly after. That boss fight was mostly for the story and to put the Sentinels back against you. The series is not known for it's boss battles, treating a boss as an overly tough enemy that must be killed instead of something that requires unique tactics to defeat. Yahtzee suggested that the reason for this odd difficulty curve was "a developing staff large enough to found a small island nation." Hillarilously incorrect, Bungie is a relatively small studio with a staff of around 200 (which includes support jobs like janitors and accountants that do not directly contribute to the development process).
Moving on to vehicle sections. Yahtzee pretended like they were clearly defined sections (like most action games) with no choice but to man the vehicle (like most action games) and no choice of vehicle (like most action games) besides Warthog (which he referred to as "jeep," a useful but inaccurate moniker). Making absolutely no mention of the choice the player can make to get out of the vehicle and procede on foot he describes him driving and his gunner aparently not destroying an enemy tank fast enough (he claimed he was shooting at butterflies, most likely entirely fabricated for a laugh, the tank wasn't destroyed quickly because he was using a .50 turret instead of an anti-armor weapon) so he took the turret and the marine crashed into a rock allowing the Wraith (enemy tank) to destroy them in an impossibly spectacular fashion. I have no problem with hyperbole but blatantly disregarding one of Halo's most fundamental and unique gameplay features is just . . . damnable. I'm talking about seamless transition from First Person Shooting to Third Person Driving, no other game I can think of does that. It's also somewhat interesting to note that he used vehicles from Halo 2 in his animations. Lazines or a subtle trick to imply poorer graphical quality?
Getting close to the end, which reminds me that this particular Zero Punctuation is rather short. Yahtzee says that the campaign is (criminally) short, about 8-10 hours. A fairly standard length for a shooter, forgiveable considering the polish levels and numerous features that add replayability, not to mention the proliferation of games that are as short or shorter. Before I go on I will point out that Yahtzee never chastizes missions, just the campaign as a whole and never points out poor level design or retarded AI (aside from Grunts and Marines, the former being cannon fodder and the latter foolishly expected to perform as well as a human). So he must hold a fairly high opinion of those aspects, since his track record shows he has nit-picking down to a science. Also left conspicuously unsaid (to anyone who's played Halo 3 at least) are Online four player Co-op, the meta-game, skulls, and saved films.
Yahtzee then claims that he "doesn't give a flying shit about multiplayer," but he clearly played Team Fortress 2 more than a little bit for his Orange Box review. I believe in this case he didn't even try multiplayer because no reviewer worth his salt would ever belittle one of the greatest (least infuriating anyway) multiplayer experiences ever created so much. He then makes the mistaken assumption that in the overall experience of Halo 3 the multiplayer is half and the campaign is half. The Halo series has always been multiplayer-centric, be it co-operative or competitive with the single-player campaign being an intergral yet short-lasting part. Yahtzee seems to take this as meaning the multiplayer excuses the campaign for it's shortness, the campaign needs no excuses since anyone who thinks it's any good will play it longer than any other shooter's campaign. Hmm, I'm starting to rant, I'll finish and move on. Good multiplayer doesn't excuse short campaign, they're different experiences and should be regarded seperately first then packaged together to regard the overall game.
Yahtzee then rants a little about how great people think Halo is great and implying that they're wrong and worse as people for it. Then he says Halo 3 is average. I'm fine with that, I can even see sane people thinking that. But then he qualifies his statement, saying everything in Halo has been done before and better. This I cannot abide for it is factually false. I challenge Yahtzee to name a shooter besides and predating Halo that: has quick and easy transistion from foot-pounding to driving, a similar or larger number of weapons with as varied effects, a similar or larger number of driveable vehicles that are as varied, equipment with similarily great impact on battle, an object layout editor, saved films, something functionally similar to Halo 3's skulls, recharging health, sticky grenades, campaign scoring, boarding vehicles, a highly restricted inventory of weapons, or significant and useful online support for many of the aformentioned features. Digging deep into the vaults of gaming history he might find a few of these popping-up here and there in inferior forms.
One final point: It's not totally unforgiveable that Yahtzee chooses to review the game based on single-player only, but it is shameful to do so while ignoring a significant component of the single-player experience. Especially considering his overt and enormous fondness for a good story in a video game.
So, that's what I have to say. Sorry for ranting in some spots, I just feel very strongly that Yahtzee is very biased against Halo.
EDIT: I don't mean this as a direct attack on Yahtzee. When I see people praising Zero Punctuation as though Yahtzee is the Apostle of God Almighty I just want them to realize that what we have here is no infalable divinity descendent from the Higher Planes to enlighten us pathetic mortals. Yahtzee is only human, flawed as is any human. What I have described above shows bias and flaws, but despite these I respect Yahtzee for admitting the game is not as bad as he would have his viewers believe. Now if he would admit and overcome his biases you herded sheep might be somewhat justified in your deifying.
I never expected Yahtzee to like very much Halo 3, his taste in games has been established as confined to games too concerned with their great story or originality to be very worried about actually being fun. He did bash the series a little before but I always assumed it was for cheap laughs.
Overall, and I think most will agree, Zero Punctuation on Halo 3 is one of Yahtzee's worst reviews. The best joke is in the third sentence ("Jewel encrusted golden gift from the treasure vaults of Xerxes," if you don't remember, unless you like "Quad era demonstandum, said Yahtzee like the big literary fag that he is." better.) Now to compartmentalize the review for review.
First Yahtzee discusses story, citing that he has never played a Halo game and lacks the backstory. It seems to me that if he really felt he needed backstory to fully appreciate the game that he intends to provide a hopefully non-biased review of then he could have found it easily on the Internet. It would take less than five minutes to pull up the appropriate articles on Wikipedia and 20-40 minutes to read the plot summary. And there, you have backstory.
He then moves on to what he figured out without backstory: Master Chief always wears armor, has friend who is the black guy from Predator, evil aliens invade Earth, for some reason some aliens aren't evil, other aliens that are headcrab copies, rings in space that kill things, a twelve-year-old-girl started talking so I stopped caring. It's really a shame that he stopped caring because he might have found it intriguing. I hardly think Miranda Keyes is even reminiscent of a twelve-year-old girl, I think he was just looking for an excuse to skip the rest of the cutscene and all others hereafter so that he could be quickly done with this game he had already decided to hate. The one valid point he made (from the stand-point of this being a review of a game) was that the story was difficult to follow without backstory. As I've said before this is easily addressed and it's not really bad for the designers of a sequel to expect the player to have played the previous installments. And I feel that Yahtzee has taken his love of Half-Life too far, the Flood and headcrabs are not at all ascetically similar. Flood forms are rotting corpses while headcrab zombies are mutated but obviously alive, the only real similarity he could have noticed is that both are "space zombies." This alone is hardly enough to call the Flood "headcrabs in disguise."
Next he complains about how bright and colorful the game is. I never really understood why he would say this (other than finding another thing to bash the game about), most eyes like candy. Looking at more recent reviews I find that Yahtzee complains as much as is reasonable about the drab color schemes of most next-gen games. So when a game is drab and dull he hates it and when a game is bright and colorful he also hates it. I suppose he likes dull and colorful, but I'd rather have the visuals set the right atmosphere than appeal to my ascetic tastes.
His next complaint is that Halo 3 is schizophrenic (as he said) or inconsistent (as he wrote), alternating between moody sci-fi horror and somewhat light-hearted sci-fi action (though he described the latter as "midget aliens running around stupidly acting like Ewoks making *finger quotes* wacky dialogue"). I won't even go into his take on Grunts because Yahtzee seems to fall into the common "intellectual" trap of "I'm smart so I can't laught at childish humor." But as for the schizophrenia, he later praises CoD 4 for changing between gun-ho pitched battle and sneaky stealth combat. The alternation in Halo 3 is similar (though admitedly more extreme) and it's not like it takes 10 hours to establish a mood, 20 minutes is more than enough to create an atmosphere.
Now: "Most of the weapons are manufactured by Matel." Hmm, most of the weapons are either UNSC or Brute, drab and practical. Only Covenant weapons are colorful and even remotely resemble toys, but it fits the Covenant mentality that war and violence are arts, not a necessities, and that their instruments should be works of art themselves. I guess trying to do things a little differently is wrong . . . wait, Yahtzee liked Psychonaughts?! That game was totally different from most things, and gameplay suffered for it.
Next "problem." Inconsistent difficulty curve. I'll guess Yahtzee played on Heroic to spot this issue. On Normal the difficulty curve is nearly perfect and is the best for training. Heroic is optimized for fun throughout (while missions get overall harder sections of them don't necessarily follow the trend), not teaching Halo noobs how to play. Yahtzee seemed to think that the end was too easy, saying that Guilty Spark was a pushover, ignoring the punishingly difficult pyramid climb immediatly before it and the exhilerating run for your life immediatly after. That boss fight was mostly for the story and to put the Sentinels back against you. The series is not known for it's boss battles, treating a boss as an overly tough enemy that must be killed instead of something that requires unique tactics to defeat. Yahtzee suggested that the reason for this odd difficulty curve was "a developing staff large enough to found a small island nation." Hillarilously incorrect, Bungie is a relatively small studio with a staff of around 200 (which includes support jobs like janitors and accountants that do not directly contribute to the development process).
Moving on to vehicle sections. Yahtzee pretended like they were clearly defined sections (like most action games) with no choice but to man the vehicle (like most action games) and no choice of vehicle (like most action games) besides Warthog (which he referred to as "jeep," a useful but inaccurate moniker). Making absolutely no mention of the choice the player can make to get out of the vehicle and procede on foot he describes him driving and his gunner aparently not destroying an enemy tank fast enough (he claimed he was shooting at butterflies, most likely entirely fabricated for a laugh, the tank wasn't destroyed quickly because he was using a .50 turret instead of an anti-armor weapon) so he took the turret and the marine crashed into a rock allowing the Wraith (enemy tank) to destroy them in an impossibly spectacular fashion. I have no problem with hyperbole but blatantly disregarding one of Halo's most fundamental and unique gameplay features is just . . . damnable. I'm talking about seamless transition from First Person Shooting to Third Person Driving, no other game I can think of does that. It's also somewhat interesting to note that he used vehicles from Halo 2 in his animations. Lazines or a subtle trick to imply poorer graphical quality?
Getting close to the end, which reminds me that this particular Zero Punctuation is rather short. Yahtzee says that the campaign is (criminally) short, about 8-10 hours. A fairly standard length for a shooter, forgiveable considering the polish levels and numerous features that add replayability, not to mention the proliferation of games that are as short or shorter. Before I go on I will point out that Yahtzee never chastizes missions, just the campaign as a whole and never points out poor level design or retarded AI (aside from Grunts and Marines, the former being cannon fodder and the latter foolishly expected to perform as well as a human). So he must hold a fairly high opinion of those aspects, since his track record shows he has nit-picking down to a science. Also left conspicuously unsaid (to anyone who's played Halo 3 at least) are Online four player Co-op, the meta-game, skulls, and saved films.
Yahtzee then claims that he "doesn't give a flying shit about multiplayer," but he clearly played Team Fortress 2 more than a little bit for his Orange Box review. I believe in this case he didn't even try multiplayer because no reviewer worth his salt would ever belittle one of the greatest (least infuriating anyway) multiplayer experiences ever created so much. He then makes the mistaken assumption that in the overall experience of Halo 3 the multiplayer is half and the campaign is half. The Halo series has always been multiplayer-centric, be it co-operative or competitive with the single-player campaign being an intergral yet short-lasting part. Yahtzee seems to take this as meaning the multiplayer excuses the campaign for it's shortness, the campaign needs no excuses since anyone who thinks it's any good will play it longer than any other shooter's campaign. Hmm, I'm starting to rant, I'll finish and move on. Good multiplayer doesn't excuse short campaign, they're different experiences and should be regarded seperately first then packaged together to regard the overall game.
Yahtzee then rants a little about how great people think Halo is great and implying that they're wrong and worse as people for it. Then he says Halo 3 is average. I'm fine with that, I can even see sane people thinking that. But then he qualifies his statement, saying everything in Halo has been done before and better. This I cannot abide for it is factually false. I challenge Yahtzee to name a shooter besides and predating Halo that: has quick and easy transistion from foot-pounding to driving, a similar or larger number of weapons with as varied effects, a similar or larger number of driveable vehicles that are as varied, equipment with similarily great impact on battle, an object layout editor, saved films, something functionally similar to Halo 3's skulls, recharging health, sticky grenades, campaign scoring, boarding vehicles, a highly restricted inventory of weapons, or significant and useful online support for many of the aformentioned features. Digging deep into the vaults of gaming history he might find a few of these popping-up here and there in inferior forms.
One final point: It's not totally unforgiveable that Yahtzee chooses to review the game based on single-player only, but it is shameful to do so while ignoring a significant component of the single-player experience. Especially considering his overt and enormous fondness for a good story in a video game.
So, that's what I have to say. Sorry for ranting in some spots, I just feel very strongly that Yahtzee is very biased against Halo.
EDIT: I don't mean this as a direct attack on Yahtzee. When I see people praising Zero Punctuation as though Yahtzee is the Apostle of God Almighty I just want them to realize that what we have here is no infalable divinity descendent from the Higher Planes to enlighten us pathetic mortals. Yahtzee is only human, flawed as is any human. What I have described above shows bias and flaws, but despite these I respect Yahtzee for admitting the game is not as bad as he would have his viewers believe. Now if he would admit and overcome his biases you herded sheep might be somewhat justified in your deifying.
really funny review and you said what about every one thought about halo 3 keep making reviews!But I mean really how in any universe you ever just label carl weathers as "that black guy from predator"? He is a living legend
I only revived it because a mod said I couldn't post that anywhere else. (Not sure why)shatnershaman said: