Best Review of Halo 3 ever!

[Rabbit Slayer]

While I did enjoy Halo 3 I would have to agree with this review
http://kotaku.com/gaming/clips/zero-punctuation-takes-on-halo-3-306687.php

[Zakiya]

Good find.

Serious stomach cramp. That was damn funny.

Thanks alot :D

[Krulltak]

Kotaku is awesome.

And I agree with everything in that review.

[Elge]

The most accurate review anyone can concoct in reference to Halo 3.

Average.

Mediocre.

But as he said, Halo is more popular than God. So why fight the fanboys when it's just easier to stand from afar and laugh?

[dutch_gamer]

Now that is a review I can actually agree with, kudos. :D

[Razma]

So,if i find a pic of MC in shorts,am i allowed to open a new topic too?

[Ozric]

That was the funniest thing I've seen and heard in a long time. :D

Watched all of the other Zero Punctuation vids too and enjoyed them all.

[Baron Khaine]

Loved it.....

[Gaazruk]

The Truth has set us free!

[Zeetchmen]

Reivew of much win :)

[Snuggans]

the only thing i would have to agree with, after playing the entire campaign, is the retarded vehicle AI. these guys must've been banned from the DMV.

its a funny review but i hope nobody actually takes it seriously, especially since the guy exposes a major flaw right in the beginning by stating he jumped right into halo 3.

[mongoose]

its a funny review but i hope nobody actually takes it seriously, especially since the guy exposes a major flaw right in the beginning by stating he jumped right into halo 3.

So ah, if you really want to play Halo 3 you first need ot know how to play Halo 1&2? :rolleyes:

No offence but if the game cant stand on its own without needing you to have played previous games then it right there has a serious design flaw.

[kirbyy]

So ah, if you really want to play Halo 3 you first need ot know how to play Halo 1&2? :rolleyes:

No offence but if the game cant stand on its own without needing you to have played previous games then it right there has a serious design flaw.

exactly. metroid... zelda... MGS... it's been done enough to prove the point

and the zero punctuation clip is hilarious. I watched his rant on the darkness demo, didn't know he was doing other games too

[Snuggans]

So ah, if you really want to play Halo 3 you first need ot know how to play Halo 1&2? :rolleyes:

No offence but if the game cant stand on its own without needing you to have played previous games then it right there has a serious design flaw.

its the essence of the game youre missing if you jump right into the third part of the trilogy. you will go into the game not really giving a crap about the plot, you will be BEYOND confused by whats happening. you wont understand why youre fighting brutes and not elites, which is portayed in the little tidbit part where he says you fight against aliens but there are some good aliens which is admittedly hilarious but thats all it is. and theres more and more to say, which i wont.

in the end he says its average because many of the things it does other games have done better but he never quite mentions examples. its like saying "i disagree halo is outstanding, but im not really going to explain why.. just make a funny run-on review about it"

[Rabbit Slayer]

its the essence of the game youre missing if you jump right into the third part of the trilogy. you will go into the game not really giving a crap about the plot, you will be BEYOND confused by whats happening. you wont understand why youre fighting brutes and not elites, which is portayed in the little tidbit part where he says you fight against aliens but there are some good aliens which is admittedly hilarious but thats all it is. and theres more and more to say, which i wont.

in the end he says its average because many of the things it does other games have done better but he never quite mentions examples. its like saying "i disagree halo is outstanding, but im not really going to explain why.. just make a funny run-on review about it"

You can play Half Life 2, Fallout 2, Star Wars KOTR 2, with out playing the first and it won't make any diffrence. Like others said if a sequal can't stand on its own then its not that good. Its not like the Halo plot is that deep either.

Also does he really need to give examples of whats been done before if you have played the halo games you pretty much know what they are.

Really the review is more of a comment on the entire Halo phenomenon then just the game. It is a average game that has had huge success.

[spirit]

Can you imagine watching return of the jedi without having watched the previous two movies? Of course Halo 3 is going to be confusing and not as good if you haven't played 1 or 2.

And you can't say "it doesnt matter in X, Y or Z so it shouldn't matter in H". Different motions for different oceans. The Halo games are rather plot-focused, and each game is a pretty much direct run-on from the last. Fallout 2 and KOTOR 2 both take different characters in different places and are essentially two different stories set in the same universe. Half-life 2 is so vastly different from the original that it doesn't really matter.


However, the review was extremely funny, and I haven't played Halo 3 yet, so I may be wrong and it may be tragically mediocre, I just hate stupid arguments like the ones used in this thread.

[Shadowsfury]

Bugger off with sites like IGN, Gamespot and the lot. He's the writes the best reviews I have ever watched and its honest, but above all he's pretty damn funny.
I just finished watching all of his reviews and they are pretty consistently amazingly humourous!

[Alaz]

That was hilarious and I actually agree with a lot of it heh, good stuff.

[Ranti]

Halo 3 and WoW are a lot a like imho

They are average games that get perfect reviews because a lot of people play them

They got a lot of people playing them because of their predecessors (IMHO) WoW had Warcraft RTS 1,2, and 3 as well as starcraft (building a fan-bass of the company) these games followed with some good marketing = fanboism


look at this compilation of reviews (http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/halo3#critics) It doesn't deserve any of those 100, a 100 imho is not only a great game it changes the genre, the first halo might of deserved a 100, but the second and third don't in any shape or form, they belong in the 70-80 range because they are solid games that have good merits.

[Ranti]

However, the review was extremely funny, and I haven't played Halo 3 yet, so I may be wrong and it may be tragically mediocre, I just hate stupid arguments like the ones used in this thread.

If Halo 3s solo-player is not understandable without halo-2 and halo-1 it is a HUGE flaw, in that case it should be renamed halo-1.3 for the xbox 360 instead of the xbox...

In books, you don't make a book and claim it to be a stand-alone if it truely isn't


Your argument was very stupid, I find it funny you are mocking others for saying a game shouldn't be a standalone, it seems like poor review of the old story in the introduction imho

[Rabbit Slayer]

Can you imagine watching return of the jedi without having watched the previous two movies? Of course Halo 3 is going to be confusing and not as good if you haven't played 1 or 2.

And you can't say "it doesnt matter in X, Y or Z so it shouldn't matter in H". Different motions for different oceans. The Halo games are rather plot-focused, and each game is a pretty much direct run-on from the last. Fallout 2 and KOTOR 2 both take different characters in different places and are essentially two different stories set in the same universe. Half-life 2 is so vastly different from the original that it doesn't really matter.


However, the review was extremely funny, and I haven't played Halo 3 yet, so I may be wrong and it may be tragically mediocre, I just hate stupid arguments like the ones used in this thread.

the star wars movies are perfectly understandble on their own My ex saw the Empire first and didn't realize it was part of a trilogy and still had not problem with it.

[Ruinx]

You can play Half Life 2, Fallout 2, Star Wars KOTR 2, with out playing the first and it won't make any diffrence. Like others said if a sequal can't stand on its own then its not that good. Its not like the Halo plot is that deep either.

Really the review is more of a comment on the entire Halo phenomenon then just the game. It is a average game that has had huge success.

Quoted for absolute Truth, especially the bolded part.

There's absolutely nothing remarkable or unusual about the Halo series at this point in time, and that includes 3, which doesn't even (now I have seen in person) have truly remarkable graphics, merely "good" ones, and yes, the guns do look like they were made by Mattel.

It's easy to iterate what made the original Halo successful, and little of it was to do with being original or "remarkably good":

1) Console-based, and designed specifically for the console - This is why it was a huge game, not "Just Another PC Shooter".

2) Well-implemented multiplayer designed specifically for console play (not a poor PC port with limited multiplayer options). Nothing remarkable about the multiplayer except that, but that was enough.

3) Original visual design which was appealling to people who liked shiny things, very clean lines, very non-gritty, non-real, even in the "scary" bits. This appeals to a broader audience than more "gritty" or "real" or "high-tech" looking games, I would argue.

3a) UI or lack thereof made game more immersive and actually more accessible to non-gamers/casual gamers.

3b) "Barbie guns" and bright, simple colours actually make the game more accessible too, by avoiding scaring off girlfriends, small children etc. The violence and chainsaw-in-face bloodspattering action of Gears of War ensure that despite similarities, it will never be as "big" as Halo.

4) Gameplay in Halo is very straight-foward, and on normal play settings, and was, at the time, generally rather easier and more accessible than most shooters. Harder settings allow for more experienced players to have fun too.

5) Story, whilst deeply unoriginal and full of sci-fi cliches, was new to the broader audience and served to tie the game together decently enough.

6) Vehicles with physics, again, whilst not new or original per se, were new to the audience, and were indeed used in some rather clever ways in the original Halo (particularly driving inside gigantic structures, and using flyers to get down from high places - I'd seen both of these before, but not for years). Vehicles in multiplayer were positively recieved and fun, too.

I think what a lot of Halo fans, in their fanaticism, fail to understand, is that it's okay to love Halo without it needing to be "amazing" or "stunningly original" or whatever. They feel that if they love a game that isn't absolutely "the best" at everything, it's some sort of personal failing, thus they are forced to blindly insist that Halo is "brilliant" or whatever. It ain't. Halo is brilliant in the sense that a Mac is brilliant. All it's elements are mediocre, apart from it's visual design, which is directed at a broad audience, but it's highly accessible, and all the mediocrity adds up to more than the sum of it's parts in multiplayer (but not in single-player). I would personally argue that Halo 3's multiplayer is still inferior to that of a lot of PC multiplayer shooters, but it has a hell of a lot more players and is a lot more accessible to new players, and that's hard to deny, as a draw.

The idea that not playing Halo 1 & 2 makes Halo 3 necessarily "confusing" is hilarious and patently untrue. Bungie themselves specifcally avoiding making Halo 3 reliant on you have played the previous games, because they're smart and always want to reach a broad audience. They went on about it.

There is one thing you wouldn't "get" about Halo, though, having not played Halo 1&2, and that's that some of the original Halo elements were "firsts" on a console shooter, particularly the well-designed multiplayer and the "recharging" health/shield, which is now common. However, there is absolute no reason that those should be considered in the review of Halo 3! They should only be considered in the review of the original Halo. Thus, if anything, this review is MORE truthful than many other reviews as a result of not being nostaliga-tainted.

the star wars movies are perfectly understandble on their own My ex saw the Empire first and didn't realize it was part of a trilogy and still had not problem with it.

Even the LotR movies are. My wife saw The Two Towers and didn't know it was part of series (she wasn't a fantasy fan back then!).

[Krulgar Neckripper]

Sorry I just find that stupid. Things start at the begining, that's the way they were made and make sense.

Anyway tat was pretty funny and yea I enjoyd playing Halo 3 like the other two, but it was a bit short, Multiplayers not bad as always but then I always prefered GOW to Halo online.
Although Halo is larger scale fights with vechiles which is mint ^^
*Chats on for a few more random minutes*

[Ruinx]

Sorry I just find that stupid. Things start at the begining, that's the way they were made and make sense.

You must really hate Quentin Tarentino movies.

[Krulgar Neckripper]

You must really hate Quentin Tarentino movies.

Aah BUT they're designed to be like that, watching/playing/reading a trilogy halway through isent. I actually like every Quentin Tarentino movie.

[Ruinx]

Aah BUT they're designed to be like that, watching/playing/reading a trilogy halway through isent. I actually like every Quentin Tarentino movie.

Actually, if you read interviews with writers of movies that make up a trilogy, you'll find that they quite specifically are designed to be enjoyable and make sense "out of context". From the original Star Wars trilogy to Kryzsztof Kieslowski's Red, White and Blue trilogy, movies have always been made so that they "stand alone", and so have games. There's no need to have played Fallout 1 to enjoy Fallout 2, or BG1 to enjoy BG2 (despite directly following on from that), etc. etc.

A rare and slightly ironic exception to this is Tarentino's Kill Bill, which he was forced to split up by the studio, I understand. Even then, it was edited so as to make the maximum sense possible, if you only saw one half.

In fact, the only place I can think of where trilogies are commonly written in such a way as to not "stand alone" is written fantasy fiction, and even then, it's only some authors who do it (Robert Jordan and George R.R. Martin, frex).

[Rofllove]

I am so glad I passed on the halo series. Called it at the first one es.

[Krulgar Neckripper]

Actually, if you read interviews with writers of movies that make up a trilogy, you'll find that they quite specifically are designed to be enjoyable and make sense "out of context". From the original Star Wars trilogy to Kryzsztof Kieslowski's Red, White and Blue trilogy, movies have always been made so that they "stand alone", and so have games. There's no need to have played Fallout 1 to enjoy Fallout 2, or BG1 to enjoy BG2 (despite directly following on from that), etc. etc.

A rare and slightly ironic exception to this is Tarentino's Kill Bill, which he was forced to split up by the studio, I understand. Even then, it was edited so as to make the maximum sense possible, if you only saw one half.

In fact, the only place I can think of where trilogies are commonly written in such a way as to not "stand alone" is written fantasy fiction, and even then, it's only some authors who do it (Robert Jordan and George R.R. Martin, frex).

Oh alright, fair does mate. Although to be fair the thing IS going to make much more sense if you read/watch/play the before instalment. So it makes sense, at least, to do these things in order, even if it's not 100% must do.

[Souls512]

I won't say Halo is the end all be all, but it is what it is.

People talk about how it "looks" heck yeah you do because it has a distinct look.
Saying it isn't "gritty", or its to "shiny" is fine, but the fact that you can look at a screen shot from the game and instantly know its a Halo screen shot is 100% the point of its look.

Halo isn't about "o lets tell a story" halo is about lets grab some guns and blow stuff up hardcore style. Halo is what it is, and that is fun to play.

I never played Halo 1, and only played 1/4 of halo 2. I read for about 30 minutes on the internet about the back story and had no issue understanding halo 3. Now I am not saying that games shouldn't be standalone. However, Halo 2 set the stage for just throwing you into the game (which most halo fans like but thats because they know the background ;) ) and Halo 3 delivered exactly what its fans wanted. (Be that for good or bad)

I won't say Halo 3 is the end all be all. But it is what it was meant to be. Fun. Heck I don't usually even like FPS games but Halo 3 is very enjoyable.

Just my 2 cents.

FYI that review was awesome and I can totally see why some people would agree with it. I just don't myself.

[Walrus]

That was great. My hat of to you sir, even if I love Halo and lack in the hat industry.

[Snuggans]

You can play Half Life 2, Fallout 2, Star Wars KOTR 2, with out playing the first and it won't make any diffrence. Like others said if a sequal can't stand on its own then its not that good. Its not like the Halo plot is that deep either.
while i havent played any of the Fallout games, both Half Life 2 and KOTOR2's storylines are written in a manner that does not necessarily continue the previous title's plot, BUT places the context in the same universe as the last one, sometimes with previous characters and similar features. in my opinion, this makes them entirely new games rather than a continuation of a previous storyline. the halo trilogy is written as if the only thing that seperated the three title's storyline was the push of the power button on your console (that and months of development), ESPECIALLY between the transition from 2 to 3. to hell with semantics, i accept these two forms of continuation as being called a 'sequel'.

why did i explain that? because atleast two of your examples (HL2 and KOTOR2 which i have played) CAN be played with little or no knowledge of the previous titles. you say: so can halo 3. but can it be understood and enjoyed? the person who made that hilarious review and his questions about the plot is evidence that most gamers would be pretty confused if they attempted to do that, thereby subtracting from the overall experience. so, YES i do agree that someone could start playing HL2 and KOTOR2 and quite possibly enjoy it with little to no confusion. NO i couldnt have played halo 3 (or 2 for that matter) in the same manner. now it is YOUR decision whether to rate halo 3 as a true continuation of the trilogy or as a standalone game. the latter, in my opinion, will net you a worse overall experience. that is fine, but remember you had a say in the matter. :(

basically, with the way that Bungie arranged the storyline, rating the 2nd and 3rd Halo as a stand alone game would be unfair.


Also does he really need to give examples of whats been done before if you have played the halo games you pretty much know what they are. if i am asking, i believe im unclear as to the specifics. it reinforces his arguments if he gives examples instead of just the heading, but im not and cannot blame him because his review is designed to be humorous, not down and serious.

as an example, very few FPS (that i have played) have been able to integrate shooting (regular on-your-feet blasting), vehicles, and aircraft as near flawlessly as the halo series has done. remember, this is only one example. now if i were to alt-tab and start up Battlefield 2142, i would have a game that does just that and is popular for it, rightly so. and both Halo and the BF series deserve to be popular for this one example.


Really the review is more of a comment on the entire Halo phenomenon then just the game. probably. do i take it seriously? no. it is a comical gag with a video game theme to it.

It is a average game that has had huge success.I may disagree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it - Voltaire.

[Snuggans]

Halo 3 and WoW are a lot a like imho

They are average games that get perfect reviews because a lot of people play them

They got a lot of people playing them because of their predecessors (IMHO) WoW had Warcraft RTS 1,2, and 3 as well as starcraft (building a fan-bass of the company) these games followed with some good marketing = fanboism

in the topic of WoW, i ask you: have you played previous MMORPGs?
i have not been an MMO player for a long time, and i have only a few titles under my belt. but after playing titles such as Lineage 2, Ragnarok Online, and Asheron's Call 2.. one major flaw in my opinion was the method of leveling. you would go out and kill thousands of mobs, over and over. sometimes you would be able to party up and go into a dungeon. one thing WoW did was take this mind numbingly dull grinding and make quests out of it. NO im not saying there is no grinding in WoW, because there definitely is. however these quests which would be picked up from the nearest town, some from your exploration routes, would be merged with a friendly interface and be varied enough to get you to the next level without falling asleep. the variety would differ from killing 10 of X to picking up a parcel at Y, even winning a game of capture the flag against the opposing faction.

add to that: instances & raids, PVP, and RP and some solid classes and you've got an MMO that IMO deserves its popularity. even i had my doubts about the game when i was eating muffins in FFXI.

P.S and a little off topic: the warcraft RTS are BLECH. SC was decent though.

[Elge]

even i had my doubts about the game when i was eating muffins in FFXI.



More like chugging down sugar and orange juice at 4 in the morning, waiting for a party in Garlaige Citadel and vomiting the next morning because of it. Or maybe it was earlier than that back in Valkurm.....either way!

FFXI...lol. Never going back. Those were not fun times when we played.

[Snuggans]

More like chugging down sugar and orange juice at 4 in the morning, waiting for a party in Garlaige Citadel and vomiting the next morning because of it. Or maybe it was earlier than that back in Valkurm.....either way!

FFXI...lol. Never going back. Those were not fun times when we played.

omg HAHA
it was like 7 am in the morning and i had stayed up all night leveling up in valkurm dunes. i made the mistake of drinking half a gallon of Sunny D orange juice and i vomited my ribs out.

[Mogstah]

You're both freeaks.

[spirit]

If Halo 3s solo-player is not understandable without halo-2 and halo-1 it is a HUGE flaw, in that case it should be renamed halo-1.3 for the xbox 360 instead of the xbox...

In books, you don't make a book and claim it to be a stand-alone if it truely isn't


Your argument was very stupid, I find it funny you are mocking others for saying a game shouldn't be a standalone, it seems like poor review of the old story in the introduction imho


Has Halo 3 ever claimed to be truly standalone? Its the third in a trilogy, and claims to be that. Its standalone in the sense that you CAN play it without playing the previous ones, but that doesn't mean you'll get the full enjoyment of it.
It's like picking up a copy of return of the king and expecting to get the same out of it as if you had read fellowship and two towers.

And well done to Rabbit Slayer's girlfriend and Ruinx's, but you missed the point entirely. Of course you can watch the second movie in a trilogy and get the story if it is a self-contained part of a trilogy and does not contain integral carry-ons between them, but I doubt she understood the full complexity of the relationships, character interactions and more subtle parts of the plot which require you to know what happened in the overlying story arc. It is absolutely impossible to get the same out of the second part of a series unless you have watched the previous parts. It isn't a flaw at all, it's called a plot.

What is annoying is that people seem to expect to be able to jump in at games at any point of a series in a way which they wouldn't be able to jump into a movie series or book series. Why should game plot lines have to suffer because of morons who can't start from step one? Unless Halo wasted time and effort on cutscenes explaining the plot of the previous games, which I don't think it should have to do.

[Ranti]

Has Halo 3 ever claimed to be truly standalone? Its the third in a trilogy, and claims to be that. Its standalone in the sense that you CAN play it without playing the previous ones, but that doesn't mean you'll get the full enjoyment of it.
It's like picking up a copy of return of the king and expecting to get the same out of it as if you had read fellowship and two towers.

And well done to Rabbit Slayer's girlfriend and Ruinx's, but you missed the point entirely. Of course you can watch the second movie in a trilogy and get the story if it is a self-contained part of a trilogy and does not contain integral carry-ons between them, but I doubt she understood the full complexity of the relationships, character interactions and more subtle parts of the plot which require you to know what happened in the overlying story arc. It is absolutely impossible to get the same out of the second part of a series unless you have watched the previous parts. It isn't a flaw at all, it's called a plot.

What is annoying is that people seem to expect to be able to jump in at games at any point of a series in a way which they wouldn't be able to jump into a movie series or book series. Why should game plot lines have to suffer because of morons who can't start from step one? Unless Halo wasted time and effort on cutscenes explaining the plot of the previous games, which I don't think it should have to do.

If i am playing 40-60 dollars for a game, and it doesn't clearly state it is a expansion, then it better have a plot that i can understand from the start.

BTW: lord of the rings was written as one book but for retail it was divided into 3 sections, it is a horrid example. Other such novels come in "sets" usually, i don't see any Halo 1, 2, 3 sets being sold. No Microsoft is being greedy cheap and making tons of money of fanbois

[Elge]

You're both freeaks.

Hi Mogstah. I love you. Babies?

[mongoose]

Well this thread has definitely removed any desire I may have had to play Halo 3 since I have never played 1 or 2 and I dont plan on playing them just to be able to enjoy #3 ;).

Thanks for clearing that up for me :p

[Grimfell Gromgear]

First of all, I love Yahtzee's reviews, he's brilliant and hillarious and often says the things that I'm thinking.

Notably, you can take Halo 3 as a stand alone game, but that misses out on something, and that something is that Halo as a franchise evokes a certain feeling in players.

It's familiarity earns it a place as the 'standard multiplayer Xbox 360 FPS' It's the kind of game you simply HAVE to own, just because everyones going to assume you own it so if your friends come over for a game and they say 'Hey, let's pop in some Halo' you can say 'Yes' instead of 'No, I'm stuck up and don't buy the most popular games for my console that I might not even like because I don't cater to my friends.'

Halo isn't the best, it's just solid and everybody is familiar with it so you buy it and accept the fact that you're going to know lots of people who play it and it's going to be as much a party game as anything else.

Oh, and lastly, Halo 3's storyline shouldn't be too hard to follow, because as a rule Halo doesn't have much of a storyline at all.

Halo 1 - Master Chief is a badass, and he saves the universe from two evil alien races.
Halo 2 - Master Chief is a badass, and the Arbiter is a badass (though not as much of a one as Master Chief), and together they save the universe from two evil alien races with the promise of a sequel.
Halo 3 - *SPOILER ALERT* Master Chief is a badass, and his badass (though still less badass) friend the Arbiter has returned to save the universe from two evil alien races, with hints of a sequel.


And that is the rich tapestry of Halo.

[Boulvae]

And those little aliens that act like migdet retards are in every game, so thats a given.

I still chuckle at head crabs in disguise remark.

[Krulgar Neckripper]

First of all, I love Yahtzee's reviews, he's brilliant and hillarious and often says the things that I'm thinking.

Notably, you can take Halo 3 as a stand alone game, but that misses out on something, and that something is that Halo as a franchise evokes a certain feeling in players.

It's familiarity earns it a place as the 'standard multiplayer Xbox 360 FPS' It's the kind of game you simply HAVE to own, just because everyones going to assume you own it so if your friends come over for a game and they say 'Hey, let's pop in some Halo' you can say 'Yes' instead of 'No, I'm stuck up and don't buy the most popular games for my console that I might not even like because I don't cater to my friends.'

Halo isn't the best, it's just solid and everybody is familiar with it so you buy it and accept the fact that you're going to know lots of people who play it and it's going to be as much a party game as anything else.

Oh, and lastly, Halo 3's storyline shouldn't be too hard to follow, because as a rule Halo doesn't have much of a storyline at all.

Halo 1 - Master Chief is a badass, and he saves the universe from two evil alien races.
Halo 2 - Master Chief is a badass, and the Arbiter is a badass (though not as much of a one as Master Chief), and together they save the universe from two evil alien races with the promise of a sequel.
Halo 3 - *SPOILER ALERT* Master Chief is a badass, and his badass (though still less badass) friend the Arbiter has returned to save the universe from two evil alien races, with hints of a sequel.


And that is the rich tapestry of Halo.

Still the books are pretty good and add a lot more depth :P Like what his badass name is an exactly HOW badass he is.

[Blaze]

Haha that was great, and very true.

I havent read all the replies here but I'll just say that the reason Halo was so popular was because it was a FPS done well for a console. For anyone who has only payed consoles it would have been amazing. Halo proved that FPS can be done well without the mouse-and-keyboard combination.

I enjoyed Halo and most of Halo 2. Very solid games overall, and I like the laconic Master Chief and the supporting cast. But if you compare them to some FPS games on the PC they are average at best. Not bad, but average. Just like that review said.

[Bob]

I liked Halo, Halo 2 and, lately, Halo 3. All of them are fun games, have, in my opinion, a good storyline, a good atmosphere, and a good set of characters. The multiplayer is fun, as is the single. They're good games.

Nevertheless, I found that review immensely amusing. Just goes to show you don't have to agree with something to like it.

[Ralzar]

I really wish this guy could take on TES: Oblivion :D

[Gemini]

Give me more reviews by him, PLEASE! Just once and I'm already addicted, I need more! I need this man's address in Austrillia so that I may fly down there and beg him to impregnate my girlfriend, just so I can have a little bit of him around me all the time.

His review on the console wars brought tears to my eyes, literally. Tears of joy and laughter, of course.

[Ruinx]

Sadly he's only done about seven reviews so far. Here's another and the other are to the right of it. Yes, that is all of them.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/1394-Zero-Punctuation-BioShock

They promise more, though.

[Ruinx]

Halo isn't the best, it's just solid and everybody is familiar with it so you buy it and accept the fact that you're going to know lots of people who play it and it's going to be as much a party game as anything else.

Oh, and lastly, Halo 3's storyline shouldn't be too hard to follow, because as a rule Halo doesn't have much of a storyline at all.

Halo 1 - Master Chief is a badass, and he saves the universe from two evil alien races.
Halo 2 - Master Chief is a badass, and the Arbiter is a badass (though not as much of a one as Master Chief), and together they save the universe from two evil alien races with the promise of a sequel.
Halo 3 - *SPOILER ALERT* Master Chief is a badass, and his badass (though still less badass) friend the Arbiter has returned to save the universe from two evil alien races, with hints of a sequel.

And that is the rich tapestry of Halo.

Grimfell, do you ever right anything wrong or stupid? If not, what's your secret? But yes, spot on as usual. Spirit's gibbering's about Halo's plot/story complexity/depth are hilarious. The average episode of Friends has a more complex plot and characters in it.

People talk about how it "looks" heck yeah you do because it has a distinct look. Saying it isn't "gritty", or its to "shiny" is fine, but the fact that you can look at a screen shot from the game and instantly know its a Halo screen shot is 100% the point of its look.

That's exactly what I said.

It's got extremely strong, Mattel-style visual design. You don't think Mattel's Barbie and GI Joe designers are pros? They are. They know what they're doing. Halo is doing the exact same thing. Taking a threatening/scary aesthetic and bringing it to the mass market in a broadly palatable way. Extremely skilled artists, but because of the nature of the franchise, they play it extremely safe.

Ranti - Exactly, the first game might deserve 100, but a staid update of that formula like Halo 3 doesn't deserve more than 90%, no matter how well it's maintained the multiplayer fun. This used to be something that reviewers actually bothered to note.

in the topic of WoW, i ask you: have you played previous MMORPGs?
i have not been an MMO player for a long time, and i have only a few titles under my belt. but after playing titles such as Lineage 2, Ragnarok Online, and Asheron's Call 2.. one major flaw in my opinion was the method of leveling. you would go out and kill thousands of mobs, over and over. sometimes you would be able to party up and go into a dungeon. one thing WoW did was take this mind numbingly dull grinding and make quests out of it. NO im not saying there is no grinding in WoW, because there definitely is. however these quests which would be picked up from the nearest town, some from your exploration routes, would be merged with a friendly interface and be varied enough to get you to the next level without falling asleep. the variety would differ from killing 10 of X to picking up a parcel at Y, even winning a game of capture the flag against the opposing faction.

Not to derail the thread, but I've played MMOs since EQ, and WoW is yuck and becoming yuckier by the day.

Levelling in DAoC = Find mobs and kill them, over and over. Then move to some more mobs and kill them over and over. Repeat until eyes bleed or are level 50. 90% of time is spent killing. Average played to max level 3 days.

Levelling in WoW = Spend an age finding appropriate level quests, travel to quests, do quests, travel great distances to hand quests back in, find more quests etc. Repeat until your eyes bleed or you are level 70. Averaged played to max level 15-18 days. LITERALLY 85% of your time is spent TRAVELLING.

Now they're just trying make levelling more unpleasant, too. For example, patch 2.2.2 secretly put in special secret level limits on FLIGHT PATHS, so even if you got to Area X, you can't fly there. This is particularly retarded in places like Ashenvale, where the 2nd FP has a minimum level of somehting like 28, when it has quests obtainable and doable at from level 25 onwards, and level 26 mobs nearby. I mean wth? 3 years of it working one way, now they just make it more of a pain? Insanity.

In the end, your choice is between playing the game 90% of the time, actually hitting and killing mobs, using your abilities and so on, or wandering around 85% of the time, not fighting anything, just travelling, travelling, travelling. TBC's quests improve it a bit and put in more actual y'know, questing, and better hubs, but levels 20-58 in WoW? Give me a break. Unless riding on automated mounts and/or running along safe roads is your idea of "a good time", WoW's levelling is HORRIBLE.

Honestly, do you even have more than one max level character in WoW? Or even one? WoW is a fun game the first time through, but every character after the first is progressively less fun.

It's the perfect example of a very mediocre game that's achieved massive success, for the exact same reasons as Halo:

1) Very strong pretty/clean visual design.

2) Extremely accessible interface/controls.

Like Halo on normal, even an non-gamer can do okay once they grasp the basics. Bad thing? No, definately not, but something that makes it kind of "limited"? Yes.

[Snuggans]

Not to derail the thread, but I've played MMOs since EQ, and WoW is yuck and becoming yuckier by the day.

Levelling in DAoC = Find mobs and kill them, over and over. Then move to some more mobs and kill them over and over. Repeat until eyes bleed or are level 50. 90% of time is spent killing. Average played to max level 3 days.

Levelling in WoW = Spend an age finding appropriate level quests, travel to quests, do quests, travel great distances to hand quests back in, find more quests etc. Repeat until your eyes bleed or you are level 70. Averaged played to max level 15-18 days. LITERALLY 85% of your time is spent TRAVELLING.

apart from the made-up percentages, i understand what youre trying to say. the thing is, all that 90% of time that you spent killing in DAoC? it just means you are mind numbingly bored 90% of the time. its usually the same routine and hotkeys pressed hundreds, thousands of times. same deal with WoW, except like i mentioned before, the quests make it much less dull than the other pure grinding MMOs. to clarify something else: just because an MMO has quests doesnt mean it will pull it off like WoW does. FFXI had quests, but painfully tedious and dull quests (lizard egg, anyone?). WoW has many interesting quests, some with pop culture references, and most do well in simulating the world of Azeroth, many small bits of stories to make up one giant big plot.


Now they're just trying make levelling more unpleasant, too. For example, patch 2.2.2 secretly put in special secret level limits on FLIGHT PATHS, so even if you got to Area X, you can't fly there. This is particularly retarded in places like Ashenvale, where the 2nd FP has a minimum level of somehting like 28, when it has quests obtainable and doable at from level 25 onwards, and level 26 mobs nearby. I mean wth? 3 years of it working one way, now they just make it more of a pain? Insanity.hmm..? i've been away from WoW too long, i didnt notice this. however i did notice that in the same patch (2.2) they made leveling easier, lol. everything from 20-60 is now faster and easier, due to whiny requests of playerbase.

In the end, your choice is between playing the game 90% of the time, actually hitting and killing mobs, using your abilities and so on, or wandering around 85% of the time, not fighting anything, just travelling, travelling, travelling. TBC's quests improve it a bit and put in more actual y'know, questing, and better hubs, but levels 20-58 in WoW? Give me a break. Unless riding on automated mounts and/or running along safe roads is your idea of "a good time", WoW's levelling is HORRIBLE.using your percentages ( :rolleyes: ) i'd rather have fun 15% of the time than to be bored 90% of the time. i dont know of your experiences, but in my opinion, traveling wasnt that big of a deal and purchased mounts made things more convenient. the thing is, you had to be smart and analyze the map a bit. for example: alliance in desolace is a big walk fest, very few quests and only one outpost whereas the horde there have two outposts and many quests. very few areas are lopsided against factions in terms of leveling convenience, and one would do well to avoid them according to their faction. looking up info on the interwebz would be wise.


Honestly, do you even have more than one max level character in WoW? Or even one? WoW is a fun game the first time through, but every character after the first is progressively less fun.60 warrior from pre TBC, 60 paladin from pre TBC, 70 shaman, and an almost 70 warlock..



1) Very strong pretty/clean visual design.

meh, subjective. in my opinion i didnt like the drawn in textures as it made it look cartoonish. there are some pretty horrible trees as well. other than that the terrain is done pretty good, as well as the lighting.

2) Extremely accessible interface/controls.

i dont know how this would add to the limitations of the game? you know of downloable addons and macros right? your imagination is the limit with these guys. also WoW has the best default controls of any MMO ive played, the whole deal with the way the mouse manipulates the camera. hell, even turning with the keyboard is frowned upon by some of the playerbase.

[Snuggans]

Oh, and lastly, Halo 3's storyline shouldn't be too hard to follow, because as a rule Halo doesn't have much of a storyline at all.

Halo 1 - Master Chief is a badass, and he saves the universe from two evil alien races.
Halo 2 - Master Chief is a badass, and the Arbiter is a badass (though not as much of a one as Master Chief), and together they save the universe from two evil alien races with the promise of a sequel.
Halo 3 - *SPOILER ALERT* Master Chief is a badass, and his badass (though still less badass) friend the Arbiter has returned to save the universe from two evil alien races, with hints of a sequel.


And that is the rich tapestry of Halo.

mate this belongs in the video review in the OP's post. :)

[Foofmonger]

Honestly, while the Halo 3 plot isn't anything great, it isn't that bad. Comparing it to an episode of friends is completely ridiculous.

I didn't find this "review" funny at all (nor any of the other ones this guy does), in fact, I find them to be extremely corny.

Its really easy for people to think that hating on popular things makes them cool, but it doesn't. Going against the grain just for the sake of it may seem like a good idea, until you realize that going against the grain quickly becomes conformity.

Ruinx, why are you keep going on and on about Halo 3? We obviously proved in the last thread about this that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Halo.

[Ruinx]

Ruinx, why are you keep going on and on about Halo 3? We obviously proved in the last thread about this that you have no idea what you are talking about when it comes to Halo.

I don't know what other thread you're talking about, but Foofy, all that's been proven recently is that you have no sense of humour and are an amazingly gigantic (probably literally) Halo fanboi of the absolutely worst kind. Considering I've played Halo 1 (finished on Legendary, played weeks worth of mulitplayer on Live) & 2 (got bored, stopped playing) and seen Halo 3 played, it would be extremely impossible for you to have "proven" what you suggest.

"You hate it because it's popular!" is that last defense of the true idiot. If anyone dares criticise anything that's remotely popular, no matter how accurate the criticism, idiots say this. It's lost all meaning and value - clearly the author does not "hate it because it's popular". He doesn't hate it at all. He thinks it's stunningly mediocre. Which is about right.

Snuggans - Ah but Snuggans, DO THE MATH, what's the total about of boredom involved in either? With DAoC it's 90% of 72 hours, i.e. 64.8hrs. With WoW, it's, say you got to 70 in 12 days /played due to PL/expertise/guides - it's 244 hours of mind-blowing boring-ness.

You could have nearly four max-level characters in DAoC for the same amount of boredom it takes to get one to 70 in WoW. Now you can start bloo-blooing about how you'd rather have one in WoW, and that's fine, but in DAoC, at the endgame, the grinding and boredom (for most people), stopped. In WoW, at 70, the grinding has only just begun. You've got how many factions you need to grind in WoW at 70? 10? 14? Something like that. Some of them require you to grind them by running an instance over and over and over too, which is fun the first three times, but not the next six, and god help you for the rest...

Hell, with PL from a friend etc. in DAoC you could have a max-level character in less than 16 hours.

Really, whining about how "boring" DAoC's levelling is and praising WoW's to the sky strikes me as utterly nuts. DAoC's levelling is a brief pain. It takes longer for most WoW players to go from 40-60 than it does for most people to level a DAoC character...

As for your "Oh you just need to plan your journeys!" - Dude, the 85% figure includes PERFECTLY planned journeying, use journeys in fact, which can NO LONGER BE MADE in WoW, so you've got to make that figure worse, not better, now. The designers of WoW already took into account mounts so they just made the journeys longer to compensate. You think 85% travel, 15% doing is made up? Bloody time it mate. Next time you level a WoW character, esp. in the 20-58 range, you get a couple of stopwatches, and have one running the whole time you're travelling, another the whole time you've actively hitting mobs or picking up items (or within immediate visual range of said mobs/items). You'll find 85% is a lot closer than you think. Equally you could set up two mods onscreen to do that, if you don't have any watches.

Also, fyi, 2.3 adds the increased quest XP and reduced XP to level 20-60, not 2.2. Do try to keep up, Bond.

All you're doing with WoW's quests is swapping an player-controlled grind that can be enhanced and massively shortened by grouping, by using the right group members, by going to the right places and so on, for a quest-dictated grind (with a world record of 4d20h to 60 by the world's best leveller, who spends his entire life looking for ways to level faster) and you've repeated the same quests at least four times, probably dozens of times. For me, I'd rather kill mobs, because I can control and speed up the rate at which I level, and I don't have to kill the same set of mobs over and over for more than an hour or two at most, typically.

[Heno]

I'd rather cut the blull and get straight to the fun part.

This is probably why i'm back on FPS and RTS for now and wouldn't touch any MMO currently out unless you paid me.

[Elge]

This thread of win is still going on?

[Wolfman]

On the subject of WoW, traveling time was definitely a problem in some parts, but the 85% figure is absurd. Travel only starts to get really bad in the 40-60 range, and you can somewhat plan around it if you know the quests.

Moreover, they've almost completely corrected this problem in TBC. They just need to go the next step and replace gryphon masters with npc mages that can port you to any of the cities you've been to before.

And the quest grind is definitely more tolerable than a mob grind for me. Mythic seems to agree, being that they're making the Tome of Knowledge one of the two or three features they're heavily touting.

[Mythnojutsu]

Zero punctuation is great and this one, like his other reviews, is excellent as well.

If anyone is interested here are links to two reviews Yahtzee did before being picked up by "The Escapist".

"The Darkness" demo for PS3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eWS9_nrKOPA&

"Fable the Lost Chapters" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYQLR7dE5k4&

both of which are great if others out there are dying to get more Yahtzee goodness

[Foofmonger]

I don't know what other thread you're talking about, but Foofy, all that's been proven recently is that you have no sense of humour and are an amazingly gigantic (probably literally) Halo fanboi of the absolutely worst kind. Considering I've played Halo 1 (finished on Legendary, played weeks worth of mulitplayer on Live) & 2 (got bored, stopped playing) and seen Halo 3 played, it would be extremely impossible for you to have "proven" what you suggest.

"You hate it because it's popular!" is that last defense of the true idiot. If anyone dares criticise anything that's remotely popular, no matter how accurate the criticism, idiots say this. It's lost all meaning and value - clearly the author does not "hate it because it's popular". He doesn't hate it at all. He thinks it's stunningly mediocre. Which is about right.


Hmmm, you don't remember the Halo 3 thread where you posted unfounded biased opinions when you have never even played the game? You know the one where you constantly was asking for features because you were far too lazy to use google? That one.

I have a great sense of humor, here you go with assumptions again. Because I don't like a corny cartoon, my sense of humor must suck right? Nice logic there.

Your last paragraph shows how truely ignorant you are. You claim people are idiots simply because they do not agree with you. You claim that the critcism is accurate, but you also claim that you have only "seen the game played". That is completely ridiculous, who cares about your opinion on a game you have never played?

It's stunningly mediocre? Why don't you actually play it before you fling more assumptions out your ?

Your arguments are laughable at best, your evidence is non-existant, and all you can do is make biased assumption after biased assumption... just like the last thread. Do I honesly go need to find that one and link it to jog your memory?

I'll tell you what, beat Halo 3, play about 20-30 hours of multiplayer, and I may consider you opinion valid. Until then, everything you post on the subject is entirely worthless. You very simply, do not know what you are talking about.

[spirit]

Grimfell, do you ever right anything wrong or stupid? If not, what's your secret? But yes, spot on as usual. Spirit's gibbering's about Halo's plot/story complexity/depth are hilarious. The average episode of Friends has a more complex plot and characters in it.


I'm impressed by how many people have shown themselves to be utter morons in this thread by completely misunderstanding any points raised. I wasn't saying halo had a deep plot, I was saying that in a series, you are going to enjoy it more if you have read/watched/played the previous parts of the series.

I also enjoy how almost every person who has gone "zomg that is liek completely true" has been saying it about oversimplified rubbish which is not true at all. Halo's plot doesn't boil down to "Master Chief is badass" any more than Star Wars boils down to "boy meets girl, saves world", or LOTR is "guy finds ring, throws it in fire, beats bad guy". It removes all the actual plot and reduces it to the most basic elements. It may be true- LOTR is about a guy finding a ring and throwing it in a fire, but there is far more to it than that, and anyone who went "lol zomg that is sooooooo true" at that kind of comment needs a lesson in humour 101.



Yahtzee is good as long as you only watch him for comedic value. He isn't truthful, insightful or anything. He hams up the bad sides of games and the gaming industry to ridiculous levels in order to garner comedic effect. He's a good comedian, but isn't a reviewer. He reviews games, but he isn't a reviewer. Considering people have had a hard time contemplating far more simple aspects of this discussion than that, I imagine a tirade of people saying "lol he writes reviews, of course he is a reviewer" are about to come. If you were thinking of writing that in response, stop and think, then if you still don't understand, don't bother.

[Snuggans]

Snuggans - Ah but Snuggans, DO THE MATH, what's the total about of boredom involved in either? With DAoC it's 90% of 72 hours, i.e. 64.8hrs. With WoW, it's, say you got to 70 in 12 days /played due to PL/expertise/guides - it's 244 hours of mind-blowing boring-ness.
i can come up with random numbers too.. it would just be a waste of my time though, so i try to avoid it. youre basing the amount of boredom (which obviously differs from person to person) based on the time it takes to reach max level? by your theory the easier games with shorter leveling times will be less boring, and vice versa. also you are assuming the player will begin to have fun at max level while the leveling was just a torture test, for some reason or another, im not sure. maybe you are describing yourself and your experiences, i dont know...

like i've stated before.. its what the game offers during the grinding that makes a difference in your level of fun. if a game is pure grinding, it doesnt matter if it takes a year to reach max level or a day, for that certain time its probably going to be tedious. now if a game offers more, even if just a little bit, that makes the grinding more fun, then you could be having fun for a day or a year, whatever time it takes to reach max level. time doesnt matter, its whether youre having fun or not during that time that does.

in DAoC, at the endgame, the grinding and boredom (for most people), stopped. In WoW, at 70, the grinding has only just begun. You've got how many factions you need to grind in WoW at 70? 10? 14? Something like that. Some of them require you to grind them by running an instance over and over and over too, which is fun the first three times, but not the next six, and god help you for the rest...10-14 factions is an exaggeration, only being truthful in the case of a VERY bored player that loves to take screenshots of their reputation tab with constant "exalted" bars. however you are right in the fact that if you want to have any sort of success in end game there are a couple of factions to grind rep for. first, the rep you are grinding for will help you unlock way better gear, enchantments, crafting recipes, and attunements to elite raids. the thought of running the same instance over and over might sound dreadful, however while youre doing this you are gearing yourself up by running instances. looking at it from a wider perspective, you are basically grinding and gearing yourself up in order to .... yes, gear yourself up even more!

if the social atmosphere of grouping, plus the thought of many rewards and sometimes hilarious/heart pounding boss battles manages to disappoint you: you are never forced to that route. you can take up PvP and earn your gear that way.
im not saying DAoC lacks these things, ive only played it briefly. however the endgame image you are providing seems a bit wrongful, atleast to me.


Hell, with PL from a friend etc. in DAoC you could have a max-level character in less than 16 hours. :confused: im missing the point here.


Really, whining about how "boring" DAoC's levelling is and praising WoW's to the sky strikes me as utterly nuts. DAoC's levelling is a brief pain. you were the first to mention DAoC, i mentioned other MMOs. like i said i've only briefly played DAoC (left because of some weird graphic card issue) so the only clue i have as to its leveling is from what you are telling me... and you've said it was boring. so.. i think you were whining about it? :confused: also... how come when someone says something positive about a game you disagree with, you always exaggerate and say its blind fanaticism, "praising to the sky", or something along those lines?


As for your "Oh you just need to plan your journeys!" - Dude, the 85% figure includes PERFECTLY planned journeying, use journeys in fact, which can NO LONGER BE MADE in WoW, so you've got to make that figure worse, not better, now. The designers of WoW already took into account mounts so they just made the journeys longer to compensate. You think 85% travel, 15% doing is made up? Bloody time it mate. Next time you level a WoW character, esp. in the 20-58 range, you get a couple of stopwatches, and have one running the whole time you're travelling, another the whole time you've actively hitting mobs or picking up items (or within immediate visual range of said mobs/items). You'll find 85% is a lot closer than you think. Equally you could set up two mods onscreen to do that, if you don't have any watches.lol :D


Also, fyi, 2.3 adds the increased quest XP and reduced XP to level 20-60, not 2.2. Do try to keep up, Bond.o. sorry :(


All you're doing with WoW's quests is swapping an player-controlled grind that can be enhanced and massively shortened by grouping, by using the right group members, by going to the right places and so on, for a quest-dictated grind in that first part you just described WoW too! the mobs found in instances are tagged with an 'Elite' trait, they give around double or x2.5 exp depending on its level if you were to solo it. when grouped up, all that exp is divided into a group and provided the level range is similar, the exp from 1 mob will be the same as 1 solo'd mob. add to this the group bonus experience. and finally, the true deciding factor that decides if this instance run is more efficient than soloing: the speed of your group. if you get into a bad group, you probably shouldve kept soloing. if not, youre going to get a better rate of exp as well as boss quality equips. its pretty good system if you get tired of quests, and DAoC seems to have it based on what you say, WoW doesnt lack it though..


p.s we're going to get wooped by moderators. this thread is in earth, we've left the solar system.. :mad:

[Rabbit Slayer]

I am just happy my thread is still going on strong : )

[Rofllove]

Here is a review of a real game. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/1368-Zero-Punctuation-Psychonauts)

[Krulgar Neckripper]

I'm impressed by how many people have shown themselves to be utter morons in this thread by completely misunderstanding any points raised. I wasn't saying halo had a deep plot, I was saying that in a series, you are going to enjoy it more if you have read/watched/played the previous parts of the series.

I also enjoy how almost every person who has gone "zomg that is liek completely true" has been saying it about oversimplified rubbish which is not true at all. Halo's plot doesn't boil down to "Master Chief is badass" any more than Star Wars boils down to "boy meets girl, saves world", or LOTR is "guy finds ring, throws it in fire, beats bad guy". It removes all the actual plot and reduces it to the most basic elements. It may be true- LOTR is about a guy finding a ring and throwing it in a fire, but there is far more to it than that, and anyone who went "lol zomg that is sooooooo true" at that kind of comment needs a lesson in humour 101.



Yahtzee is good as long as you only watch him for comedic value. He isn't truthful, insightful or anything. He hams up the bad sides of games and the gaming industry to ridiculous levels in order to garner comedic effect. He's a good comedian, but isn't a reviewer. He reviews games, but he isn't a reviewer. Considering people have had a hard time contemplating far more simple aspects of this discussion than that, I imagine a tirade of people saying "lol he writes reviews, of course he is a reviewer" are about to come. If you were thinking of writing that in response, stop and think, then if you still don't understand, don't bother.


Incase you were wondering, I was joking with my post on this. Assumed that was obvious, maybe not..

[Grimfell Gromgear]

Spirit
Yahtzee certainly does review games, simply because you disagree with his viewpoints on certain titles (Such as that Halo is average and simply does everything that's been done before, or that Bioshock is basically a direct copy of System Shock 2, or that Fable doesn't offer any real choices, or that Psychonauts, while having technical faults, is still one of the greatest games ever...), doesn't mean that he doesn't review them.

Review = an essay or article that gives a critical evaluation.

Yahtzee is biased, plays for comedic effect, and lingers on negatives (because as he's pointed out they're funnier), he also seems to prefer old school games over the modern crop. None of that means he isn't a reviewer, he's just a reviewer you apparently either don't agree with personally or on principle because he doesn't stress the points you believe he should.


And as to Halo's storyline... it is very minimalist when compared to some other games, and doesn't tread into unfamiliar territory. It's also not very deep or complex and has few twists or turns that are hard to see coming. It definitely HAS a story (not all games do), but it's nothing anyones picking apart and studying like they might do with Lord of the Rings, and in five minutes I could cover everything from Halo 1 and 2 with someone to get them up to speed for 3 if they needed it. (Notably, Star Wars, as you mentioned, doesn't have a very deep plot either. At least not the original trilogy... and the new trilogy has NO plot.)

[Shadowsfury]

Here is a review of a real game. (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/1368-Zero-Punctuation-Psychonauts)

Word! I just got that game in a way, and its fun. Wierd and it aint perfect by a long shot but it makes me laugh and the last time a game did that is too long ago.

[Snuggans]

Spirit
Yahtzee certainly does review games, simply because you disagree with his viewpoints on certain titles (Such as that Halo is average and simply does everything that's been done before, or that Bioshock is basically a direct copy of System Shock 2, or that Fable doesn't offer any real choices, or that Psychonauts, while having technical faults, is still one of the greatest games ever...), doesn't mean that he doesn't review them.

Review = an essay or article that gives a critical evaluation.

Yahtzee is biased, plays for comedic effect, and lingers on negatives (because as he's pointed out they're funnier), he also seems to prefer old school games over the modern crop. None of that means he isn't a reviewer, he's just a reviewer you apparently either don't agree with personally or on principle because he doesn't stress the points you believe he should.

compared to the true reviewers such as say: gamespot, IGN, even the user submitted reviewers write their reviews in a constructive manner. they go into depth, pointing out the negatives and the positives, they review nearly every area of the game including sound, graphics, etc...

if you compare this to his reviews, some people are bound not to take him seriously. they might just view his reviews to get a good laugh, whether or not they agree with what hes saying. and this will inevitably destroy any notion of him being a 'reviewer' in the eyes of some of the people watching his reviews.

also: greg kasavin sucks

[Elge]

My review of this thread:

Some win, a lot of fail, more win, much more fail.

[homepa]

halo 2 and 3 is for multiplayer, and halo 3 campain is short, but extremly fun, i really only got it for multi player, and because this is on an MMO website, im guessing not too many people really know who this guy is. if this guy wants a long campain than go play halo 1. and if he thinks its too easy, he should take it off easy, mabye try legendary.

[homepa]

P.S. this guy is an idiot, he's not even funny

is there a reason people like him?
halo is an amazing game, any one who played it for maore than 10 minutes would know that.

[Foofmonger]

Spirit


Review = an essay or article that gives a critical evaluation.

Yahtzee is biased, plays for comedic effect, and lingers on negatives (because as he's pointed out they're funnier), he also seems to prefer old school games over the modern crop. None of that means he isn't a reviewer,



Exactly why he isn't a reviewer.

You say that a review gives a critical evaluation, does he do that? No.

He gives his biased opinion. It is neither critical, nor a real evaluation. I

They are almost "mock" reviews, a la seanbaby in EGM. When I read Seanbaby (who is way funnier then this guy), talk about Build a Bear Workshop game, I don't take that as a serious review either.

[spirit]

Spirit
Yahtzee certainly does review games, simply because you disagree with his viewpoints on certain titles (Such as that Halo is average and simply does everything that's been done before, or that Bioshock is basically a direct copy of System Shock 2, or that Fable doesn't offer any real choices, or that Psychonauts, while having technical faults, is still one of the greatest games ever...), doesn't mean that he doesn't review them.

Review = an essay or article that gives a critical evaluation.

Yahtzee is biased, plays for comedic effect, and lingers on negatives (because as he's pointed out they're funnier), he also seems to prefer old school games over the modern crop. None of that means he isn't a reviewer, he's just a reviewer you apparently either don't agree with personally or on principle because he doesn't stress the points you believe he should.




Considering people have had a hard time contemplating far more simple aspects of this discussion than that, I imagine a tirade of people saying "lol he writes reviews, of course he is a reviewer" are about to come. If you were thinking of writing that in response, stop and think, then if you still don't understand, don't bother.

I already pre-won this argument, yet you still went for it. Well done.

Yahtzee does not aim for truth, he aims for comedy. As such he is a comedian, not a reviewer.

It has nothing to do with him thinking halo is average. In fact I only got halo 3 today and have barely played it yet. I haven't played bioshock, and I haven't played most of the other games he has reviewed. I also don't care if a reviewer disses a game I like, because they have a right to not like the game. But he isn't reviewing the game, he's exxadurating to comedic levels, and hamming up the negativity.

It's funny, it's not a review.

[SharderBlade]

P.S. this guy is an idiot, he's not even funny

is there a reason people like him?
halo is an amazing game, any one who played it for maore than 10 minutes would know that.


I have played Halo for much more than 10 minutes and it is mediocre, much like the review said. Not bad, just average. There are much much better FPSs out there, unfortunately they are mostly for PC, so you silly console owners will be stuck with inferior FPSs. For Xbox that is Halo3. With any luck at all though Unreal Tournament 3 will come out for the 360 at some future date and you will all buy it and realize what a tool you were for thinking Halo 3 was the best thing ever.

[Boulvae]

He even states in one of his own 'reviews' that he's paid to point out negatives and humurously mock it with giving SOME form of a basic sum-up.

[Grimfell Gromgear]

I already pre-won this argument, yet you still went for it. Well done.

Yahtzee does not aim for truth, he aims for comedy. As such he is a comedian, not a reviewer.

It has nothing to do with him thinking halo is average. In fact I only got halo 3 today and have barely played it yet. I haven't played bioshock, and I haven't played most of the other games he has reviewed. I also don't care if a reviewer disses a game I like, because they have a right to not like the game. But he isn't reviewing the game, he's exxadurating to comedic levels, and hamming up the negativity.

It's funny, it's not a review.

Another tact then.

I've decided to strip his review of comedy and post a summary here.

"Halo 3 is an competent but in no way groundbreaking game that treads on familiar territory that other games have done before, and better. Compared to PC shooters it falls behind in many areas. It is very short in single player, and one should only consider buying it if they're a fan of multiplayer. Notably, non-longterm fans of the series may not get as much from the game as those people that have played through Halo's 1 and 2. A highlight of the game is the driving sequences, but the AI for your drivers and gunners can range from spotty to downright broken. Also, the games difficulty starts out hard but ends far too easily. Overall, average."

So, either that's not a review... which someones going to have to explain to me why... or somehow adding comedy to that makes it no longer a review... which... someone is going to have to explain to me why.

[Wolfman]

Another tact then.

I've decided to strip his review of comedy and post a summary here.

"Halo 3 is an competent but in no way groundbreaking game that treads on familiar territory that other games have done before, and better. Compared to PC shooters it falls behind in many areas. It is very short in single player, and one should only consider buying it if they're a fan of multiplayer. Notably, non-longterm fans of the series may not get as much from the game as those people that have played through Halo's 1 and 2. A highlight of the game is the driving sequences, but the AI for your drivers and gunners can range from spotty to downright broken. Also, the games difficulty starts out hard but ends far too easily. Overall, average."

So, either that's not a review... which someones going to have to explain to me why... or somehow adding comedy to that makes it no longer a review... which... someone is going to have to explain to me why.

Yeah, your summary sounds pretty accurate to me, and your logic is irrefutable.

[Shadowsfury]

I already pre-won this argument, yet you still went for it. Well done.

Yahtzee does not aim for truth, he aims for comedy. As such he is a comedian, not a reviewer.

It has nothing to do with him thinking halo is average. In fact I only got halo 3 today and have barely played it yet. I haven't played bioshock, and I haven't played most of the other games he has reviewed. I also don't care if a reviewer disses a game I like, because they have a right to not like the game. But he isn't reviewing the game, he's exxadurating to comedic levels, and hamming up the negativity.

It's funny, it's not a review.

Spot on Spirit.

Ofcourse it aint a true review. Thats like saying the The Onion (www.theonion.com) is a reliable newssource. Comic relief people, dont be so bloody serious the whole time.

[Grimfell Gromgear]

Spot on Spirit.

Ofcourse it aint a true review. Thats like saying the The Onion (http://www.theonion.com) is a reliable newssource. Comic relief people, dont be so bloody serious the whole time.

The Onion makes stuff up. That's why they aren't credible.

Yahtzee makes jokes, but all of his points are actual real points. His review isn't something like
'But then halfway through the game Master Chief becomes a giant walking midget'.

Even when he turns on his personal bias, it's a real personal bias, he doesn't make things up.

[Wolfman]

The Onion makes stuff up. That's why they aren't credible.

Yahtzee makes jokes, but all of his points are actual real points. His review isn't something like
'But then halfway through the game Master Chief becomes a giant walking midget'.

Even when he turns on his personal bias, it's a real personal bias, he doesn't make things up.

Again, I have to agree with you. Those are definitely reviews.

Even Roeper tries to be funny when he's reviewing movies - especially the ones he doesn't like.

I mean, what are you people arguing against this expecting? An academic review on a video game? No one does those.

[Blaze]

I don't agree with the topic of this thread. Yahtzee's review is not the best ever. It's the funniest though :p.

But it is a review none the less. And it's mostly true. When you look at Halo 3 objectively, there is nothing spectacular about it. And yes I've played it. I just had to find out how the story ended and I'm looking forward to multiplayer. It was ok, but compared to PC games I've played... meh.

And this game has once again proven that you can no longer trust the major gaming sites for unbiased reviews. Gamespot gave it a 9.5, but I didn't bother with reading that review.

Ign also gave it 9.5 for some reason, despite lots of comments like this in the actual review:

Most of the nine levels are hunky-dory, but the penultimate chapter is so bad, just thinking about it puts a rotten taste in my mouth. It's the kind of level where, if playing through Halo 3 again, I might just stop once I reached it and not bother finishing the skirmish, much less the fight.

It's been said that the world would be doomed without Master Chief. After seeing the other marines in action, that makes a lot of sense. The AI drivers are less like marines and more like Mr. Magoo

If you play alone, the AI takes control of the Arbiter and allows him to tag along. Enjoy watching your supposed equal getting shot in the face repeatedly and generally making himself utterly useless. What is the point of sticking you with an AI compatriot if all he's good at is respawning?

Now again, it's not a bad game. But does it deserve a 9.5? Hell no.

[spirit]

Another tact then.

I've decided to strip his review of comedy and post a summary here.

"Halo 3 is an competent but in no way groundbreaking game that treads on familiar territory that other games have done before, and better. Compared to PC shooters it falls behind in many areas. It is very short in single player, and one should only consider buying it if they're a fan of multiplayer. Notably, non-longterm fans of the series may not get as much from the game as those people that have played through Halo's 1 and 2. A highlight of the game is the driving sequences, but the AI for your drivers and gunners can range from spotty to downright broken. Also, the games difficulty starts out hard but ends far too easily. Overall, average."

So, either that's not a review... which someones going to have to explain to me why... or somehow adding comedy to that makes it no longer a review... which... someone is going to have to explain to me why.


I've seen more in-depth reviews on the Amazon comment boards than that. You're not a journalist if you write a paragraph for a newspaper once a month. You're not a musician if you play on your drums for five minutes once a week.

Lets put it this way. Is "This is Spinal Tap" a documentary? No, it's a comedy which uses the format of a documentary to cause amusement. Does Yahtzee write reviews? No, he writes comedy which uses the format of a review to cause amusement.

To review something you must strive to approach it from an unbiased standpoint. Yahtzee goes into it aiming to find all the bad things about it and mock them (for reference, see the Bioshock review). If he had played the game, thought it was bad and wrote a review about it saying that it was bad- fine. But Yahtzee plays games, ignores whether he likes them or not, and finds flaws that he can mock for comedic effect. Therefore, it isn't a review.

[Grungas Ironnose]

That was simply halarious. I'm getting halo 3 with my 360 for my birthday any though because I want to see what all the fuss is about.

[Blaze]

To review something you must strive to approach it from an unbiased standpoint. Yahtzee goes into it aiming to find all the bad things about it and mock them (for reference, see the Bioshock review). If he had played the game, thought it was bad and wrote a review about it saying that it was bad- fine. But Yahtzee plays games, ignores whether he likes them or not, and finds flaws that he can mock for comedic effect. Therefore, it isn't a review.

Well, he did give a very positive review of Psyconauts. He pointed out the flaws of he game, but said he didn't mind them because the game was something original.

Obviously he values innovation and originality above all else. And when it comes to those qualities, Halo 3 fails badly. And with Bioshock, the parallels between it and System Shock 2 are pretty obvious, and he points them out.

Keeping that in mind, I would say it qualifies as a review. At least by the dictionary definition. It's not supposed to be a credible review, he doesn't even give a score for the games. But the points and observations he makes a valid.

[spirit]

Well, he did give a very positive review of Psyconauts. He pointed out the flaws of he game, but said he didn't mind them because the game was something original.

Obviously he values innovation and originality above all else. And when it comes to those qualities, Halo 3 fails badly.

Keeping that in mind, I would say it qualifies as a review. At least by the dictionary definition. It's not supposed to be a credible review, he doesn't even give a score for the games. But the points and observations he makes a valid.


That was the one and only positive review he did, and in the later bioshock review he says that due to the amount of complaining he got when he did a positive review, he was going to zoom past the good points and focus heavily on the flaws.

I agree by dictionary definition it is a review. But then again by dictionary definition, elmer counts as a work of literature. Dictionaries can't get across all the nuances of a word.

[Blaze]

That was the one and only positive review he did, and in the later bioshock review he says that due to the amount of complaining he got when he did a positive review, he was going to zoom past the good points and focus heavily on the flaws.

I agree by dictionary definition it is a review. But then again by dictionary definition, elmer counts as a work of literature. Dictionaries can't get across all the nuances of a word.

Yes, he readily admits these things himself. And thats why I like these reviews of his. He doesn't drone on about the same things you can read about in a dozen other reviews.

In his Bioshock review he points out how incredibly easy the game is. It's so easy it takes all the fun out of it because you can just run though the whole game brainlessly blasting everything if you want to. And this is something all the other reviews I had read somehow managed to miss.

He does focus on the flaws and even says so, but while doing so he is really running a commentary about the state of the gaming industry. And if he gets people to see that we could use more games like Psyconauts out there, or more games that actually require some thought to play... I say more power to him.

[Julius]

It's not a very good review, but it is a damn funny one.

I love Yahtzee.

[Grimfell Gromgear]

Of course reviews are bias. If reviews weren't bias then every review for something would come out the exact same way. Most people simply find someone who's opinion they agree with and follow that persons reviews. (I was always a Siskel fan, so I tended to ignore whatever Ebert talked about and instead pay attention to what Siskel thought of a movie)

I've always fealt the game review system we have nowadays thanks to the shift in the industry is incredibly silly, because it doesn't use the full spectrum of 1-10. It's like a 6 is a bad game and a 9 is a good game based on most reviewers opinions.

All you're trying to say is Yahtzee doesn't review things in a manner that you agree with. Fine, don't pay attention to his reviews. Just like I don't pay attention to what Ebert drones on about because what he cares about in movies has nothing to do with what I care about in movies.

[Wolfman]

Moved my comments to the following thread:

http://www.warhammeralliance.com/forums/showthread.php?t=19781

[Foofmonger]

Baising an entire review on "innovation" is entirely silly. Just because a game is innovative, doesn't mean it is good. Just because a game isn't innovative, doesn't mean it is bad.

Halo 3 is not a bad (or even mediocre) game, and it isn't very innovative. Lair is an entirely mediocre game, and it is fairly innovative.

That is the primary reason I don't take this guys reviews seriously, because they aren't based on giving a fair perspective.

Also, psychonauts was an ok game, but nothing that great. :P

[Blaze]

That is the primary reason I don't take this guys reviews seriously, because they aren't based on giving a fair perspective.

Well, thats ok. Because they aren't meant to be taken seriously. If they were he'd make them sound less like rants, and take a breath in between sentances :D

But I guess what I'm trying to say that even if his reviews are are silly or not even really reviews, he makes some good points. You might not agree with them but his opinions are not invalidated just because they are presented in a funny way.

And you are correct about innovation not making a good game. But for a game to get 10/10 like many reviews are giving Halo 3, it should be innovative as well as good. Does a game like Halo 3 really deserve a 94% rating average at gamerankings (http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/926632.asp)?
The standards of the game industry sure have been lowered if Halo 3 can now be considered an amazing, or even as some reviwes are saying, near-perfect game. It's a average to good game, and playing though it I really could not see what would make it so bloody amazing. Those reviewers really are either taking regular dopamine injections while playing it like Yahzee said or they are giving people what they want to hear about an incredibly overhyped game in fear of losing subscribers for their magazine or visitors for their web-page.

[Ruinx]

The Onion makes stuff up. That's why they aren't credible.

Yahtzee makes jokes, but all of his points are actual real points. His review isn't something like
'But then halfway through the game Master Chief becomes a giant walking midget'.

Even when he turns on his personal bias, it's a real personal bias, he doesn't make things up.

Grimfell, in the eternal battle between intelligent people with a sense of humour and understanding of context, and humourless morons who freak out when "their game" (or "their team" or "their state" or whatever) is insulted, you're always going to lose, because Spirit and Foof, deeply ironically considering their strong desire to constantly insult others, seem mentally incapable of grasping the points you're making.

Yahtzee's reviews are far more real in terms of reviewing a product than the plasticky reviews most games-sites put out. Roger Ebert is a good comparison, because for some people he's worth listening to, and others not. As you describe, though, his reviews are actually very accurate and biting, often picking up on flaws. Anyone who thinks they're "not real reviews" or that OTHER reviewers are "unbiased" is truly cretinous.

Foof - You're like a mechanical irony-producing machine. You just pump it out. Keep it up ;) You send me £40 or $60 or whatever, or just a copy of Halo 3, and I'll play it through and on Live. Otherwise, I'm not a wastrel, I have a budget and a family to look after (unlike you, I'm sure), and Halo 3 doesn't fit in the budget unless it's a genuinely good game*. Nothing I've seen indicates that.

Besides, whatever I might think of Halo 3, do you seriously think 10/10 is a correct or sensible review for Halo 3? What about 9.5/10? 9/10? What about all the 9+ Halo 2 reviews? Did you think they were spot on? To me, Halo 1 was a 9/10 game, and the sequels have just been lesser versions of it. Solid games, but not remarkable games.

I notice Somethingawful.com has a funny yet accurate review (not a Truthmedia review, either, those are intentionally filled with lies) of Halo 3 too now.

* - I admit that 10 years ago, I'd have bought it just to prove you wrong, but that was a long foolish time ago ;)

[Snuggans]

the amount of hypocrisy that is being emitted from the above post has reached an insane level.

considering their strong desire to constantly insult others->

and humourless morons who freak out when "their game" (or "their team" or "their state" or whatever) is insultedseem mentally incapable of grasping the points you're making.I have a budget and a family to look after (unlike you, I'm sure)
so many forum rules have been broken in the entirety of this thread, we need to get a broom and a couple of fire extinguishers.

im out.

[spirit]

Grimfell, in the eternal battle between intelligent people with a sense of humour and understanding of context, and humourless morons who freak out when "their game" (or "their team" or "their state" or whatever) is insulted, you're always going to lose, because Spirit and Foof, deeply ironically considering their strong desire to constantly insult others, seem mentally incapable of grasping the points you're making.


Well done Ruinx, you just made a fool of yourself.

Humourless moron: I've already said several times in this very thread that I thought the videos were funny.
Context bit: I haven't taken anything out of context. I think the video is a bad review, but a very funny piece, and I don't discredit it by saying it is a bad review, because as I have stated before- it aint meant as a review in the first place, it's meant as comedy. (wait a minute, I understand what comedy is and you don't...how ironic for a humourless moron, and hey look, I know how to use the word ironic and you clearly don't)

"mentally incapable of grasping the points you're making": Somehow I think you are "mentally incapable" of discerning the difference between "not grasping" and "not agreeing with". I can understand all his points perfectly well, I just don't agree with many of them. I don't think a video which places its emphasis more on comedy than an unbiased, accurate approach is really a review. It's a comedic review, but I watch it soley for the fact that it is funny rather than the fact that it gives me any information whatsoever. And of course the points it makes are true, because the fact that they are true adds to the humour. However in a review of a game, to give an accurate account you need to show the good sides and the bad sides in order to come to a conclusion about its awesomeness or lack of. Yahtzee doesn't, which is why even though his points are inciteful and funny, he doesn't provide an accurate review of Halo 3. Not that it is a bad thing, but when people are basing their views on a game off it, I think they are incredibly stupid.

Personally, after playing through Halo 3 once, and having not tried multiplayer, I think it is higher than average, but not as good as the first two. I'd probably give it an 8.5, because it IS very good, but not as good as a lot of magazines make it out to be.

[Ruinx]

See, you don't get it, do you? As I said. It's a perfectly valid review. In no way whatsoever have you demonstrated that it is a "bad review". For it to be bad it would need to be misleading or inaccurate. It is neither of those things. You've said it's not "accurate", but haven't really explained how. Do you feel it's not "fair and balanced" enough? Well that's very sad, but that's not how reviews work, and it doesn't make them "inaccurate" if they don't go into meticulous detail about the game.

Do you think people who go to a film or don't based on a Roger Ebert review are "incredibly stupid"? Because this is the exact equivalent of that, or of the reviews of many other popular movie critics. No-one is "incredibly stupid" for thinking this is a valid review. They may be "incredibly stupid" for basing all their opinions on one source (if they are), but explain to me exactly how it's more stupid to base your opinions on this review of Halo 3 than it is on, say, 1UP's or Games Radar's 10/10 reviews?

I mean, come off it. Games Radar's review, like many others, lavishes heaps of praise on Halo 3 with only the most token criticisms, and completely misses every criticism Yahtzee has, because god, if it put them in, it couldn't give it 10/10.

What's really wierd is, your actual opinion of the game, as an "8.5" game seems a hell of a lot closer to Yahtzee's opinion than the faultless 10s and 9.5s reviewers have been spouting off for this game. From what I've seen, I'd rate Halo 3 as an 8.0 myself, so you hardly differ from me there. Funny that, especially funny when I've been told I'm so very wrong ;)

In fact, the reason Yahtzee's review is so important, and so very definately not a bad review is that it dares to voice (apparently accurate criticisms) that other sources have been afraid to. If speaking the truth when others hold back isn't good journalism, then I don't know what is.

It is thus not just a good review, but an important one.

Snuggans - Nice hypocrisy dude ;)

[Rofllove]

Typically if you disagree with Thodin Firehammer, Ruinx, or me The only person that will be made a fool of is you.

[cmstophe]

The most accurate review anyone can concoct in reference to Halo 3.

Average.

Mediocre.

But as he said, Halo is more popular than God. So why fight the fanboys when it's just easier to stand from afar and laugh?
How is it average and mediocre? It's a damn fun game, with damn good gameplay and vehicle segments, and overall very fluid combat and a great multiplayer component.

The story is mediocre at best and it's not nearly as good as a lot of people claim it is, but it is certainly better than 95% of the other FPS garbage that comes out.

EDIT: And WoW rules.

[SharderBlade]

Typically if you disagree with Thodin Firehammer, Ruinx, or me The only person that will be made a fool of is you.

Take out Thoden and you and you have that correct.

And to cmstophe. Go out and play another FPS. The reason why everyone thinks Halo is so epicly awesome is because it attracts a bunch of people that hadn't really ever played an FPS before.

[Foofmonger]

Foof - You're like a mechanical irony-producing machine. You just pump it out. Keep it up ;) You send me £40 or $60 or whatever, or just a copy of Halo 3, and I'll play it through and on Live. Otherwise, I'm not a wastrel, I have a budget and a family to look after (unlike you, I'm sure), and Halo 3 doesn't fit in the budget unless it's a genuinely good game*. Nothing I've seen indicates that.

Besides, whatever I might think of Halo 3, do you seriously think 10/10 is a correct or sensible review for Halo 3? What about 9.5/10? 9/10? What about all the 9+ Halo 2 reviews? Did you think they were spot on? To me, Halo 1 was a 9/10 game, and the sequels have just been lesser versions of it. Solid games, but not remarkable games.

I notice Somethingawful.com has a funny yet accurate review (not a Truthmedia review, either, those are intentionally filled with lies) of Halo 3 too now.

* - I admit that 10 years ago, I'd have bought it just to prove you wrong, but that was a long foolish time ago ;)

Honestly dude, you expect me to take you seriously when you post garbage like this?

First of all, it isn't my fault you cant afford 60 bucks to buy a game. Go cry to your family for all I care. It isn't about being wasteful, it is about being cheap. If you are too cheap to buy a game, why do you have to plague us with your completely unfounded opinion on something you know nothing about?

You say it isn't a "genuinely good" game, and then state that nothing you have "seen" has indicated this to you. Maybe it is because your head is planted firmly up your . It is hard to see anything good about something you are already biased about.

In the last thread, you didn't even know the features of Halo 3. Remember the argument we had about that when I told you multiple times to go look it up? And you refused because you were far too lazy and incompotent to google 5 letters? I had to post the features for you, and after that, your entirely argument faltered, and you stopped posting.

So lets see, you didn't even know the features of the game, claim that nothing you have "seen" has indicated to you that Halo 3 was a good game... and yet you think anyone is going to take you seriously?

Using the Ebert example, what you are doing is like a movie critic reviewing a movie he has never seen before in his life. Maybe he watched the trailer, and thats it. Does anyone take that guy seriously? No. The same exact reason your posts are entirely frivolous.

If Ebert were to review Spider Man 3, simply based on the fact that he saw the first two, and watched the trailer, he would be made fun of by every other critic in the entire world. How are you doing anything different?

Regardless of the ridiculous arugment you are presenting, ill show you something to "see". I'll make it easy to find, since you seem to only "see" what you want to believe.

WWW.METACRITIC.COM (http://www.METACRITIC.COM)

Go to videogames, and then Halo 3. Then read the dozens of reviews from reputable gaming publications from around the world.

Note: Ive owned Halo 3 for about a week and a half now, have made Captain grade 2 in multiplayer, and have beaten the game twice. I am directly telling you that when it comes to Halo 3 Ruinx, you do not know what you are talking about, and you never have.

To Rofl: You have to be joking right? I'll debate any ridiculous argument anyone presents, even you guys. If you care to look up my post history, I am certain it will becomes fairly obvious that I am usually not the one looking like the idiot at the end of the thread.

Edit: One more thing. I am absolutely not saying that Halo 3 is the best game ever, or that it is the best fps ever or anything. I am saying that it is a good game. If you put any amount of time in it, it becomes very clear that it isn't a bad or mediocre game. Just because you don't like a certain game or genre, doesn't make it bad.

Do I like sports games? No. Do I go around telling people who play Madden that it is a bad or mediocre game? No. Because I am not a pretentious .

There is an inherant difference between offering an unbiased review of a game, and offering a biased opinion of a game. If you cannot tell the difference, then please, don't post.

[Rofllove]

Take out Thoden and you and you have that correct.

What do you have against Thodin? He what you would get if Thor and Odin had a witty midget child! Surely someone with the power of two gods is at least half as infallible as I.

To Rofl: You have to be joking right? I'll debate any ridiculous argument anyone presents, even you guys. If you care to look up my post history, I am certain it will becomes fairly obvious that I am usually not the one looking like the idiot at the end of the thread.


FOOD! *pounces out from under his bridge and starts crunching on it*

On a serous note, Halo 1 is competent shooter that revolutionized FPS games for the counsel systems, knowing this I had the foresight to know that any sequel could not live up to such a revolutionary game so Microsoft would play it safe and the sequels would be boiler plate, run of the mill, average. Predicting this I decided to pass on the series to prevent wasted time, wasted money, and being disappointed.

[Rabbit Slayer]

On a serous note, Halo 1 is competent shooter that revolutionized FPS games for the counsel systems, knowing this I had the foresight to know that any sequel could not live up to such a revolutionary game so Microsoft would play it safe and the sequels would be boiler plate, run of the mill, average. Predicting this I decided to pass on the series to prevent wasted time, wasted money, and being disappointed.


really? what did it do that was so revolutionary?

[Rofllove]

really? what did it do that was so revolutionary?

:pI don't know, I never played it.

[Rabbit Slayer]

:pI don't know, I never played it.

lol yeah I wouldn't say anything was revolutionary just an average game that came out at the perfect time.

[spirit]

See, you don't get it, do you? As I said. It's a perfectly valid review. In no way whatsoever have you demonstrated that it is a "bad review". For it to be bad it would need to be misleading or inaccurate. It is neither of those things. You've said it's not "accurate", but haven't really explained how. Do you feel it's not "fair and balanced" enough? Well that's very sad, but that's not how reviews work, and it doesn't make them "inaccurate" if they don't go into meticulous detail about the game.

Are you intentionally misunderstanding me or are you just completely stupid?

A bad review doesn't have to be misleading or innaccurate, it just has to not have much information about the game and not provide a good look at the game. Yahtzee does neither. He tells us bugger all about the game and he doesn't do it in an unbiased fashion, both of which lead to it being a technically bad review. It most certainly is not a good review, and therefore it is a bad one.


Do you think people who go to a film or don't based on a Roger Ebert review are "incredibly stupid"? Because this is the exact equivalent of that, or of the reviews of many other popular movie critics. No-one is "incredibly stupid" for thinking this is a valid review. They may be "incredibly stupid" for basing all their opinions on one source (if they are), but explain to me exactly how it's more stupid to base your opinions on this review of Halo 3 than it is on, say, 1UP's or Games Radar's 10/10 reviews?


Because a standard reviewing site/mag (which im assuming 1UP and Game radar are as I haven't been on them) at least have text which can lead you to make your own mind up, even if the scores (which are useless anyway) say 10/10. All good reviews (I dont know if 1up or GR are good) will give you the good points and the bad points of the game at hand, weigh them up and tell you what they think in general about the game, usually throwing in some joyous witticism to keep the text interesting. Yahtzee doesn't. He ignores any good points the game may have, doesn't play multiplayer (which for a game highly praised for its multiplayer is a bad mark straight off) and I'm doubtful if he even tells us what he really thinks about the game, but instead gives us a hammed up comedy version of what he thinks.

On a second note, I thnik anyone who bases their entire opinion on something on any number of critics is a moron. The amount of good films that have been slated by most critics is enormous.



I mean, come off it. Games Radar's review, like many others, lavishes heaps of praise on Halo 3 with only the most token criticisms, and completely misses every criticism Yahtzee has, because god, if it put them in, it couldn't give it 10/10.

What's really wierd is, your actual opinion of the game, as an "8.5" game seems a hell of a lot closer to Yahtzee's opinion than the faultless 10s and 9.5s reviewers have been spouting off for this game. From what I've seen, I'd rate Halo 3 as an 8.0 myself, so you hardly differ from me there. Funny that, especially funny when I've been told I'm so very wrong ;)

In fact, the reason Yahtzee's review is so important, and so very definately not a bad review is that it dares to voice (apparently accurate criticisms) that other sources have been afraid to. If speaking the truth when others hold back isn't good journalism, then I don't know what is.

It is thus not just a good review, but an important one.


If any reviewing site/mag ignores the criticisms they could give, then they are writing bad reviews. I'm not saying there aren't other bad reviews out there, just that if you take Yahtzee as a reviewer (which I dont, i take him as a comedian, and a pretty damn funny one at that) he writes bad reviews.

Call me pinickity, but I'll call every single reviewer out there bad and wrong if they either heap boundless praise or over-criticise a game which is great but has flaws. They are abandoning their job as being unbiased sources of information, and simply become marketing tools for selling extra games.

[Boulvae]

Your mixing up a simple review with a bad one. A simple one is just one that puts up points and doesn't get into many details, just summing it up in a simple way. The reviews you think as being the only true reviews (it seems but I could be misreading) are thorough reviews. They're both reviews, but one actually gets into more detail significantly compared to the other.

[Despoiler]

Dying on the floor laughing. Oh man that was good.

The Halo series is complete crud. Halo went from being the most promisingly awesome franchises to the most boring, POS, underachieving game series I have ever played. Bungie never should have taken Microsoft's money. Pre MS specs for Halo were god like. Post MS purchase it went to an iteration of space carebears with extra warm fuzzies.

[Rabbit Slayer]

Bungie never should have taken Microsoft's money. .

lol come on are you saying you wouldn't take a huge bag of money from microsoft. I mean worst case scenrio you take the money and use it to make a new franchise.

[Grimfell Gromgear]

Are you intentionally misunderstanding me or are you just completely stupid?

A bad review doesn't have to be misleading or innaccurate, it just has to not have much information about the game and not provide a good look at the game. Yahtzee does neither. He tells us bugger all about the game and he doesn't do it in an unbiased fashion, both of which lead to it being a technically bad review. It most certainly is not a good review, and therefore it is a bad one.

Every reviewer is biased. When a reviewer says 'This game has an engrossing plot.' The implied point before that is 'In this reviewers opinion, this game has an engrossing plot.' Yahtzee tells us plenty about a game, he just frames the terms in personal experience. For example, from his Tomb Raider review he covers...

Awkward Camera angles
Difficult colision detection for platforming
Bad controls (and in detail. Both bad choice of a non hold down rapid fire trigger button, and hard jumping/climbing controls)
Enemies requiring too many hits to kill
Nice graphics though with an overemphasis on 'sexiness'
Redudancy of majority of the levels with the originalSure, he refers to all of these through his personal experience, and he does each comically, but he those points are all still brought up in his review. It's not like he says 'this game is average' and doesn't explain WHY he say's it's average. He goes to great detail as to what features he likes or dislikes in a game (usually dislikes... but that's his style). All reviewers pick out their personal likes and dislikes, most just 'frame' their statements as though they're speaking for the general gaming public. Like 'Gamers will find that the difficulty curve is quite varied' as opposed to saying 'I found the difficulty curve quite varied.' Both say the exact same thing, and anyone reading (or listening) to a review is going to come away with the same point. The reviewer found the difficulty curve varied.


Because a standard reviewing site/mag (which im assuming 1UP and Game radar are as I haven't been on them) at least have text which can lead you to make your own mind up, even if the scores (which are useless anyway) say 10/10. All good reviews (I dont know if 1up or GR are good) will give you the good points and the bad points of the game at hand, weigh them up and tell you what they think in general about the game, usually throwing in some joyous witticism to keep the text interesting. Yahtzee doesn't. He ignores any good points the game may have, doesn't play multiplayer (which for a game highly praised for its multiplayer is a bad mark straight off) and I'm doubtful if he even tells us what he really thinks about the game, but instead gives us a hammed up comedy version of what he thinks.

Yahtzee's not playing multiplayer is tantamount to what you read in most reviews that say 'You might not be interested in this game if you're not a fan of multiplayer.' That's why he even brings it up. It's his way of saying 'If you want to play multiplayer, read someone elses review, I'm not covering it.' He certainly does mention what he thinks about the game (he calls it 'average', or in game rating terms a 7.5...) As for dwelling on the negative, that's his perogative. Gene Schallot often throws out nothing but positives and witicisms in his reviews and no one acts like he's not a critic because of it. It's style.


On a second note, I thnik anyone who bases their entire opinion on something on any number of critics is a moron. The amount of good films that have been slated by most critics is enormous.

That's why you find a critic you like (I miss Siskel). What a person should do is buy their own games/movies. Find ones they like, compare back to various critics to find someone who reviews closely to their personal preferences, and then pay attention to that persons reviews in the future.


If any reviewing site/mag ignores the criticisms they could give, then they are writing bad reviews. I'm not saying there aren't other bad reviews out there, just that if you take Yahtzee as a reviewer (which I dont, i take him as a comedian, and a pretty damn funny one at that) he writes bad reviews.

Call me pinickity, but I'll call every single reviewer out there bad and wrong if they either heap boundless praise or over-criticise a game which is great but has flaws. They are abandoning their job as being unbiased sources of information, and simply become marketing tools for selling extra games.

Critics aren't intended to be unbiased because such a thing is impossible. If critics were unbiased, every review of a game would be the same, or at least attempt to be the same.

Again, look at Siskel and Ebert. Both of them cared about different parts of a movie, they often disagreed and argued on movies, and most of their viewpoints came from their personal opinions. Ebert especially was fond of phrasing terms like 'I enjoyed the movie, it was a laugh a minute thrill ride that kept me on the edge of my seat.' And they're the most recognizable, and probably greatest film critic team of all time. They didn't even give point reviews either, just a generic 'thumbs up or thumbs down.' Leaving people to glean most of their points from their long debates on the films nature. The whole point was to listen to them, find the one you agreed with, and trust him.

Again, Yahtzee reviews games, you don't agree with Yahtzee's style, and apparently don't agree with his preferences, so don't follow his reviews. There's plenty of people out there who agree with Yahtzee on a lot of points (so far I certainly have... it's nice to see someone stick up for Psychonauts, point out how easy Bioshock was, and finally call Halo 3 average) So in the future I'll continue to take his counsel on titles.

[spirit]

Sorry, I misused the term unbiased. If you go back and read it again, every time I said unbiased I meant that even if you hate a game you should look at its good points and bad points. There might not be many good points, but at least look for them. It is a level of removal, stepping back from the game in order to take a look at what is actually there rather than spouting your emotion-fuelled bile at the public because you got annoyed at, say, a glith in the last level which meant you couldn't finish the game.

Basically, I don't think a good review could ever only look at negatives or only at positives. Most games have good aspects and bas aspects to them.

Boulvae: A simple review is a bad one. The aim of a review is to inform you about what the game is like. If you aren't delving deep, then you are not completing your aim, and you are therefore writing a bad review.

[Grimfell Gromgear]

Sorry, I misused the term unbiased. If you go back and read it again, every time I said unbiased I meant that even if you hate a game you should look at its good points and bad points. There might not be many good points, but at least look for them. It is a level of removal, stepping back from the game in order to take a look at what is actually there rather than spouting your emotion-fuelled bile at the public because you got annoyed at, say, a glith in the last level which meant you couldn't finish the game.

Basically, I don't think a good review could ever only look at negatives or only at positives. Most games have good aspects and bas aspects to them.

Boulvae: A simple review is a bad one. The aim of a review is to inform you about what the game is like. If you aren't delving deep, then you are not completing your aim, and you are therefore writing a bad review.

I think that's a fine position to take. Personally though I have little need to have a reviewer tell me much of the good points of a game since if it's a big name title I'm going to assume that features they've hyped, and general things (like controls, graphics, etc.) will work. So I'm more looking for someone to tell me otherwise.

I guess you could say I look less for someone to tell me a game is 'Great', and more for someone to tell me it's 'Not bad', when it comes to your average title.

Yahtzee's talents as a reviewer will have to come up to the test of time, if he has a following a year from now and is still going, then I think that'll warrant him status as a good reviewer. At the moment I'm still in his camp because so far I've agreed with most of what he's said and he seems to have similair tastes in a lot of games as me.

[Julius]

On a serous note, Halo 1 is competent shooter that revolutionized FPS games for the counsel systems, knowing this I had the foresight to know that any sequel could not live up to such a revolutionary game so Microsoft would play it safe and the sequels would be boiler plate, run of the mill, average. Predicting this I decided to pass on the series to prevent wasted time, wasted money, and being disappointed.

Yeah I think the main point about Halo 3 is that it isn't anything new. Sure the multiplayer is more awesome and stuff like that, but the singleplayer hasn't improved very much.

[Foofmonger]

I think that's a fine position to take. Personally though I have little need to have a reviewer tell me much of the good points of a game since if it's a big name title I'm going to assume that features they've hyped, and general things (like controls, graphics, etc.) will work. So I'm more looking for someone to tell me otherwise.

I guess you could say I look less for someone to tell me a game is 'Great', and more for someone to tell me it's 'Not bad', when it comes to your average title.

Yahtzee's talents as a reviewer will have to come up to the test of time, if he has a following a year from now and is still going, then I think that'll warrant him status as a good reviewer. At the moment I'm still in his camp because so far I've agreed with most of what he's said and he seems to have similair tastes in a lot of games as me.

Just because someone has a following doesn't make them good at what they do. That is a very gross assumption.

Yahtzee is not a professional reviewer. I am positive many people on these boards could write more insightful and accurate reviews them him. Simply because you agree with his style, or what he says, doesn't make him a good reviewer.

I disagree with almost every point about these games you have made. Bioshock wasn't that easy (play it on a harder difficultly if you are going to complain about the difficulty), Halo 3 is far from average (pretty much every other professional reviewer in the entire world agrees with this), and Psychonauts wasn't that great of a game (theres a reason it sold no copies).

Sometimes its nice to hear something you don't hear everywhere else, but that doesn't automatically make it true though.

[Grimfell Gromgear]

I disagree with almost every point about these games you have made. Bioshock wasn't that easy (play it on a harder difficultly if you are going to complain about the difficulty)

You're immortal with no reprucussions for dieing. You can choose to, if you wish, simply run and hit a Big Daddy with a wrench once, die, respawn, and do it again, through the entire game.

Bioshock is only hard if you self impose difficulty, even then I never found any trouble just hacking and letting camo turn me invisible as I let turrets and searchlights kill everything for me. Plus once I was regaining health for wrench hits well... I think even when I was self imposing difficulty (not abusing respawns) I only died a couple of times when I got too lazy.


Sometimes its nice to hear something you don't hear everywhere else, but that doesn't automatically make it true though.

Reviews are always personal opinion. You can't argue that someones opinion isn't valid when it comes to something like this, and I, like many others, happen to agree with Yahtzee's opinions. That being the case, if he had an opinion about a game I've never played, I'd probably take it under consideration when looking at the title.

All you're saying is you don't agree with Yahtzee's viewpoints. That doesn't make them not valid for people who do agree with him.

I have never once found Gene Schallot to say a single thing I consider important when it comes to movie reviews. I don't argue that he's not a critic, he's just not a critic with my tastes.

[cmstophe]

Take out Thoden and you and you have that correct.

And to cmstophe. Go out and play another FPS. The reason why everyone thinks Halo is so epicly awesome is because it attracts a bunch of people that hadn't really ever played an FPS before.

"Go out and play another FPS." Nice. First, I will kindly tell you to blow me because your blatant assumptions nor your arrogant condescending attitude doesn't mean you're right.

I'll let you know that my list of FPS played includes:

Goldeneye
Perfect Dark
Half Life
Half Life 2
Far Cry
Doom
Doom 3
The Halo games
Counter Strike/Day of Defeat (both mods of HL)
Deus Ex (more of a hybrid)
Starsiege: Tribes
Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam

And more.

A lot of these games, particularly Half Life and Deus Ex, I would consider better FPS than Halo.

Doesn't mean Halo is bad, and it definately isn't mediocre. It's a pretty good FPS. Great, fun gameplay. That's what it comes down to. Stop hating on it because it's popular. No, it isn't nearly as good as people say it is, but it is a quality FPS no doubt.

EDIT: Thought I might add that I have followed Halo since 1999, when it was a much more impressive looking PC/Mac game, and I am primarily a PC gamer. I am no stranger to FPS. In fact, it's one of the only 2-3 genres I play.

[Kane]

thats great lol

[Foofmonger]

You're immortal with no reprucussions for dieing. You can choose to, if you wish, simply run and hit a Big Daddy with a wrench once, die, respawn, and do it again, through the entire game.

Bioshock is only hard if you self impose difficulty, even then I never found any trouble just hacking and letting camo turn me invisible as I let turrets and searchlights kill everything for me. Plus once I was regaining health for wrench hits well... I think even when I was self imposing difficulty (not abusing respawns) I only died a couple of times when I got too lazy.


Yes, you are obviously immortal, and you don't restart when you die. However, if you play on the highest difficulty, you will easily see that the game itself isn't that easy. Yes, you come back to life when you die, and you don't have to restart every level. It doesn't mean that the gameplay isn't challenging at all, because it is. I never abused respawns, played on the hardest difficulty, and beat the game, and it sure as hell wasn't "easy".



Reviews are always personal opinion. You can't argue that someones opinion isn't valid when it comes to something like this, and I, like many others, happen to agree with Yahtzee's opinions. That being the case, if he had an opinion about a game I've never played, I'd probably take it under consideration when looking at the title.

All you're saying is you don't agree with Yahtzee's viewpoints. That doesn't make them not valid for people who do agree with him.


I have never once found Gene Schallot to say a single thing I consider important when it comes to movie reviews. I don't argue that he's not a critic, he's just not a critic with my tastes.

I can argue that his opinion isn't valid... If I couldn't, then you wouldn't be able to argue that his opinion is valid. It is two sides of the same coin.

You are right, it doesn't make his opinions invalid for people who agree with him, but it does make his opinions invalid for people who don't agree with him.

I'm not arguing he isn't a critic. I'm arguing that he isn't a professional critic. He is not a reputable source for game information. I, as well as the majority of people on these boards, could write more insightful reviews then Yahtzee. His reviews sound like he went to the message boards of all these games, looked at the complaints, and complied them into some absurd super whiney jumble.

Gene Shallot is famous, he has a job as a critic, and gets paid to do it. Yahtzee is not. Under your guidelines, every poster on every message board ever is a critic. Being critical and being a critic are not the same thing.

Yahtzee is no more a critic then every whiney forum poster who says that X game sucks. So unless you consider every single one of them a critic as well, I fail to see your point.

[Foofmonger]

"Go out and play another FPS." Nice. First, I will kindly tell you to blow me because your blatant assumptions nor your arrogant condescending attitude doesn't mean you're right.

I'll let you know that my list of FPS played includes:

Goldeneye
Perfect Dark
Half Life
Half Life 2
Far Cry
Doom
Doom 3
The Halo games
Counter Strike/Day of Defeat (both mods of HL)
Deus Ex (more of a hybrid)
Starsiege: Tribes
Battlefield 1942 and Vietnam

And more.

A lot of these games, particularly Half Life and Deus Ex, I would consider better FPS than Halo.

Doesn't mean Halo is bad, and it definately isn't mediocre. It's a pretty good FPS. Great, fun gameplay. That's what it comes down to. Stop hating on it because it's popular. No, it isn't nearly as good as people say it is, but it is a quality FPS no doubt.

EDIT: Thought I might add that I have followed Halo since 1999, when it was a much more impressive looking PC/Mac game, and I am primarily a PC gamer. I am no stranger to FPS. In fact, it's one of the only 2-3 genres I play.

The thing about FPSes is that there are so many different varieties of games. While they are all labeled as FPSes, you can even go into subcategories.

First, you have your Solo oriented games (like Deus Ex and the orginial Half Life, etc..). Then you have your multiplayer oriented games (Tribes, Battlefield, etc..).

Then you have your solo shooters, and your team based shooters. Then you have your realistic shooters, and your unrealistic shooters. Etc..

So, when people say X game is better then Halo 3, you might be comparing games with entirely different functions.

You say that Half Life and Deux Ex are better, but I disagree. As far as solo games go, yea those games rocked. But Halo is all about multiplayer (at least for me). To me, it would be like comparing Final Fantasy X vs WoW or something like that. They are both RPGs, but one is a solo game, and the other is supposed to be played with many other people. Comparing them seems silly.

[Grimfell Gromgear]

Yes, you are obviously immortal, and you don't restart when you die. However, if you play on the highest difficulty, you will easily see that the game itself isn't that easy. Yes, you come back to life when you die, and you don't have to restart every level. It doesn't mean that the gameplay isn't challenging at all, because it is. I never abused respawns, played on the hardest difficulty, and beat the game, and it sure as hell wasn't "easy".

Again, with the ability to turn completely invisible.
Hypnotize the most powerful enemy in the game to fight for you.
Utilize turrets and infinitely spawning hoverguns to fight for you (via an absurdly easy minigame)
Recover health with every melee attack if you're forced to use it.
Have enough money at any time to buy full to health packs.
And lastly, revive, at any time, with no penalty, with all enemies still injured allowing you to half kill anything and then go finish it off.

The game is impossible to lose. I never fealt at all challenged playing it. I like the story, don't get me wrong, and it's got some genuinely creepy moments, but it's cheapened by the fact that there was no threat of real danger.


I can argue that his opinion isn't valid... If I couldn't, then you wouldn't be able to argue that his opinion is valid. It is two sides of the same coin.

You are right, it doesn't make his opinions invalid for people who agree with him, but it does make his opinions invalid for people who don't agree with him.

I'm not arguing he isn't a critic. I'm arguing that he isn't a professional critic. He is not a reputable source for game information. I, as well as the majority of people on these boards, could write more insightful reviews then Yahtzee. His reviews sound like he went to the message boards of all these games, looked at the complaints, and complied them into some absurd super whiney jumble.

Gene Shallot is famous, he has a job as a critic, and gets paid to do it. Yahtzee is not. Under your guidelines, every poster on every message board ever is a critic. Being critical and being a critic are not the same thing.

Yahtzee is no more a critic then every whiney forum poster who says that X game sucks. So unless you consider every single one of them a critic as well, I fail to see your point.

Yahtzee gets paid to 'write' (or act or draw) reviews for The Escapist, which is an online gaming magazine. He started with his own wesbite where he produced reviews for horror movies, wrote mods for video games, etc. etc., however his video reviews (which he only did 2 of on his own) grew popular enough for him to be hired on by a periodical for which he now produces one a week.

Yes, an internet periodical, but that doesn't change the fact that a published website is paying him for his services. Paying him to review games for them.

So, if he's working for a magazine that's paying him for reviews he's no better than a forum poster? He doesn't even get to pick what games he reviews, they're chosen by his editor. He commented he'd much rather review games he likes but that he's forced to do the more mainstream ones which he doesn't have as much taste for. His editor chooses the titles he just writes the reviews.

[cmstophe]

The thing about FPSes is that there are so many different varieties of games. While they are all labeled as FPSes, you can even go into subcategories.

First, you have your Solo oriented games (like Deus Ex and the orginial Half Life, etc..). Then you have your multiplayer oriented games (Tribes, Battlefield, etc..).

Then you have your solo shooters, and your team based shooters. Then you have your realistic shooters, and your unrealistic shooters. Etc..

So, when people say X game is better then Halo 3, you might be comparing games with entirely different functions.

You say that Half Life and Deux Ex are better, but I disagree. As far as solo games go, yea those games rocked. But Halo is all about multiplayer (at least for me). To me, it would be like comparing Final Fantasy X vs WoW or something like that. They are both RPGs, but one is a solo game, and the other is supposed to be played with many other people. Comparing them seems silly.

My friend, I am on your side here, defending Halo and saying it is no mediocre garbage like all these people are saying. :)

I am all about immersion, plot, and atmosphere, so it's no doubt I thought Half Life and Deus Ex were better games than Halo. The mods Half Life spawned push that game way above Halo, in my eyes, though.

Nevertheless, Halo has superb gameplay and a very robust multiplayr component across the board. It is a good game; nay, a GREAT game. All three of them. (moreso first and third)

[Shadowsfury]

Whether hes right or not, he is funny. Just check out his new review on the Tabula Rasa beta.

[Heno]

Gene Shallot is famous, he has a job as a critic, and gets paid to do it. Yahtzee is not.



He is actually. He get's paid by "The Escapist" to do reviews for them. Maybe he's not famous, but I wouldn't say being famous makes you any more of a credible reviewer O.o

He also says himself that he tries to be fair in his reviews, even if they do tend to focus on the bad points. Most reviews I read have a fair few jokes in them. Not good jokes, but hey, they try anyway. He's just reviewing them for the single player, as he clearly states in the review, and let's face it, Halo's single player isn't really that good. It's...okay, but definetly not 10/10 OMG BUY NOW

[Dragonspear]

I have to agree with the review. Halo 3 is 100% average, mediocre, run of the mill, standard FPS. Its just for some reason people give their nuts for it.

[Rofllove]

I have to agree with the review. Halo 3 is 100% average, mediocre, run of the mill, standard FPS. Its just for some reason people give their nuts for it.

Marketing, people like it because they are told to like it. It is really that simple.

[Elge]

The cake is a lie.

[Dracallo]

I hate Xbox :evil:

[Julius]

I hate Xbox :evil:

Irrational fanboyism: +1