| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (104)

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
how much did ya get paid for that?

i'm not a fan of the halo series, but my friends tell me it's just another fps.

this isn't fanboyism talking...just read the "the last words"...obviously someone got $$$$$

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:45PM WackyCoffee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow... just, wow :(
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Right. God forbid they...I don't know...actually liked the game.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:21PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
No one was paid for that. Jeesh. It is a fantastic title. A landmark not just in gaming but in entertainment.

However, since this review was about the campaign and not the entire package, it is odd that brevity wasn't mentioned. The game was quicker for me than Heavenly Sword. I didn't find HALO 3 to be brief by the way, just not as lengthy as HS.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:25PM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Once again another "I don't like this game so anyone who disagrees with me is bias and being paid off." Just go die in a fire.

How bout this, why don't you actually play the game before you say such stupid shit.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
the typical sony fanboy responce that ms must have paid off someone for a 360 game to get a great review, getting so sick of their dumb excuses
Reply

Posted: Sep 29th 2007 1:09AM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
I'm another gamer coming from the largely-ignored-Halo crowd and I can say that for the most part, he's right. The game is fun, though, and Forge is an amazing achievement.

Realistically, Halo is not too revolutionary, it's just executed on very well - the same way that Gears of War was except there's nothing immediately amazing to gawk at. Halo 3 multiplayer is just fun. Regards to a post later down about extensive testing - that is probably true but didn't stop me and my co-op buddies to get lost/going the wrong way many times throughout the campaign.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 6:09PM Spiza said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Its not a bad game, there are just so many better FPS games out there.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 7:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
First you haven't even played the game so your opinion goes down the drain.

Second: Honestly the game is great, I mean I wasn't into halo neither, my experience with Halo 1 was lackluster but this was great. Seriously I have been played social and it's freaking great.

Reply

Posted: Sep 29th 2007 12:50PM Mal F4cti0n said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I have said this before and I will say this again;

It is not just another fps.

What bungie has done is basically put you in control of a robot in a virtual reality. Your view is a camera on the head of a body. Your body jumps, bumps, floats, runs, hits its head, croaches, crawls, and does everything else realistically. You are not a free floating camera with a gun in your screen. This makes things like, if it looks like you can jump up and climb thru that opening, you can, happen.

I do not know of any game that truly attempts what bungie has done in this regard. Some MAY have attempted it, but they haven't come remotely CLOSE to what bungie has been able to accomplish.
Reply

Posted: Sep 29th 2007 1:53PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@malfaction

I love Halo 3, but Tribes 2 did this in 2001.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:43PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
All 3 of you had great things to say about the graphics. "What's important is that the visuals are never a crutch, allowing Halo 3 to deliver on more important issues." "Halo 3 is a perfect example of why art is more important than tech." "Rather, it's one best suited to demonstrate plain and simple fun."

Now please everybody, remember art is more important than tech and the fun factor is more important than graphics. HALO 3 PROVED IT, SEE?

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:45PM vmenge said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Art direction was shitty in the first two Halo games, but apparently this one makes up for it (:
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why haven't any of the reviewers mentioned that Microsoft and Bungie lied and reported on the back of cover of the game case the game states it supports 720 and 1080p and it is actually running at 640p. Why haven't the reviewers mentioned that Microsofts flagship title can't run on the HD platform that Microsoft is saying the 360 is. And lastly why aren't reviewers pointing out that games like Resistance Fall of Man available at launch has 720p, and a max of 40p per room and Halo 3 doesn't even come close to matching that!

Hell even Warhawk spits out 720p with up to 32 in a room! And Warhawk Multiplayer can more than hold it's own against the Lo-Def under 720p Halo 3.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:49PM Altairio said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
"Why haven't any of the reviewers mentioned that Microsoft and Bungie lied and reported on the back of cover of the game case the game states it supports 720 and 1080p"

Because it doesn't matter.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 7:27PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@JesseJames
I posted it once, I'm posting it again.
Any You, JesseJames - take notes and go protest for all games I will list below:

-------------
"On X360 scaled games
Two 640p Perfect Dark and Halo3 (1138x640) (no AA)
Three 600p PGR3, Call Of Duty 3 and Tomb Raider (1024x600) (all have 2xMSAA)
(also probably Tony Hawk's Project 8)

RR6 is ~ 1440x810
1080p VT3 and NBA street (1920x1080)
thats all - all other games use 1280x720


On PS3 scaled games
540p - The Darkness (960x540)
600p - Tony Hawk's Proving Ground, Call Of Duty 3

Ninja gaiden Sigma 1280x720 (not 1080p game - software 2x scaller to 1080 from 960x720 - 1080p is more blurred than 720p!)

GTHD use 1440x1080
Rub'a'dub use 1600x1080
Stardust HD use 1280x1080

and more - mostly software scaling to 1080i (R6:Vegas - bad and blurry)

( GRAW2 in multiplater 600p ? - unconfirmed)

more info
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=43330 "
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 9:22PM ummhello said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
umm....because, Jesse, you dumbshit, it says it SUPPORTS 720p, 1080i, 1080p....it DOES NOT say it RUNS IN 720p, 1080i, 1080p...

DUH!
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 9:58PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
HALO Proved it, the game rocks. But..I bought the Legendary edition and on the box and elsewhere it says they have remastered editions of the HALO 1 and HALO 2 cutscenes on Bonus Disc 2. Those things look like crap.

Frankie tried to counter and say they were fewer pop ins on the HALO 2 scenes but they are grainy with washed out color. They look like they were filmed off of a TV with a handheld camera. I can produce better results with FRAPS and HALO or HALO 2 under Vista. That part of the package was a complete ripoff.
Reply

Posted: Sep 30th 2007 9:52AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Well I also bought the Legendary, and although I was dissapointed that they were not HD, can only play them in 576p, the Halo CE ones in particular do look better than the original, and both sets, with the exception of the occassional moment are flawless just not HD.

Obviously if you say they are grainy and washed-out you are either baiting or you have a really crap TV that can't handle SD, like alot of cheap or rubbish LCD/Plasma/DLP/Projectors.
Reply

Posted: Oct 7th 2007 4:50PM RobLink said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@ JesseJames
"Why haven't the reviewers mentioned that Microsofts flagship title can't run on the HD platform that Microsoft is saying the 360 is."
What? Are you saying that Halo 3 doesn't run on the 360? Because that's how it reads. My copy works fine. And the 360 IS an HD console. It supports 1080p, just like your PS3.

"And lastly why aren't reviewers pointing out that games like Resistance Fall of Man available at launch has 720p, and a max of 40p per room and Halo 3 doesn't even come close to matching that!"
Because they're not reviewing Resistance. Simple really. And I wouldn't go comparing the two really:

http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/ps3/resistancefallofman?q=resistance
Pretty solid, no?
http://www.metacritic.com/games/platforms/xbox360/halo3?q=halo%203
Oh. Well now, that's a whole bunch better.

And realistically you can't say that Halo's multiplayer isn't good. Halo 2's has ruled XBox Live for 3 years now, and this improves it in every way. Not saying Resistance is a bad game, just saying it's not better than Halo 3. Single or multiplayer.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:46PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Why haven't any of the reviewers mentioned that Microsoft and Bungie lied and reported on the back of cover of the game case the game states it supports 720 and 1080p and it is actually running at 640p. Why haven't the reviewers mentioned that Microsofts flagship title can't run on the HD platform that Microsoft is saying the 360 is. And lastly why aren't reviewers pointing out that games like Resistance Fall of Man available at launch has 720p, and a max of 40p per room and Halo 3 doesn't even come close to matching that!

Hell even Warhawk spits out 720p with up to 32 in a room! And Warhawk Multiplayer can more than hold it's own against the Lo-Def under 720p Halo 3.

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:50PM vmenge said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Because it doesn't really affect the gaming experience at all.
Only lifeless nerds notice that Halo 3 is running at 640p without being told by anyone else.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:53PM The Wicker Man said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
there is already a post about this dipshit.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I was suprised when I learned about this. I recall Micrsoft saying that every 360 game will run in HD, and I think it's very low of them to say that it does on the back of the case if it doesn't.

With that said, I really don't care that it's not HD.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:04PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Why didn't someone teach your Dad to use a condom?
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
This is so funny. I'm glad that Halo 3 got 360 fans to talk shit about pixel counters. They're joining the Wii fans! What's next, you're gonna argue that it's ok for a game to be really fun without looking as good as Gears? Ahahaha.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:14PM GuyManDude said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Regarding the resolution, PS3 Lair could have been 1080P would that of made it a great game or even a good one? If Gears of war was only 480p would it suck? Forza2 is far from a graphically great game but the game play, online support and every other aspect of the game make it a completely great game.

The point is how well the entire title comes together, in all aspects not in a one or two. People seem to try to find things to complain about with H3, while in reality they can only point out a couple small things in a list big list of good things.

Remember Halo2 wasnt known for its compelling single player mode yet it remained to be the most played game on Live for how many years.





Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:26PM Vegeta has a ps3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Maybe it's because no one cares except retards like you.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:29PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Because, most people aren't going to care about "HD Resolutions" when they're fragging the hell out of everyone online......multiplayer is the reason that halo 2 has been the #1 xbox multiplayer game since it's launch (and it consistently beat out all 360 online multiplayer games, except for Gears of War for like 2 weeks).

Seriously, graphics and resolution aren't going to matter 3 years down the road when everyone is still loading up their halo 3 discs for some multiplayer action.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Hey genius - how many maps in Resistance support 40 players? Two, last time I heard. Nothing comes close to the matchmaking system, variety and customization of Halo 3. Nothing. There's also a reason Bungie puts a max of 16 per room. Balance. Ever try a team game w/ 20 people per side? How does communication in that go? Oh, it's nonexistent. Don't even throw Warhawk out there in the same sentence as Halo 3 because you just embarrass yourself.

The PS3 is an ok system, with no buzz, no blockbusters, and flat sales. Not 3do or cd-i horrible, just flat; due to a lack of direction in marketing, a bad price point and most importantly not a single must have game.

I'm not spending money on the thing until there's a gaming reason to buy it and pull me off of my 360 an xblive. And I don't see one anytime soon
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:44PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Lame! everyone complaining about the 640p res... who cares..like the extra lines of resolution will make the game any more enjoyable
the games fun to play, plain and simple.. as for comparing it to the likes of resistance or warhawk.. yeah I saw a HUGE line of people waiting for those games! it goes to show that people will bitch about anything...
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 6:12PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
If anyone actually believes that Halo would be better with 30+ player matches (Hell, even 16+), you are sadly misinformed, and should donate your copy to more well-deserving people immediately...
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 7:30PM (Unverified) said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
http://www.blogsmith.com/profile/612104/

Look at JesseJames' history of comments...it's an amusing look at a douchebag at work
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 10:56PM hey buddy said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
"Only lifeless nerds notice that Halo 3 is running at 640p without being told by anyone else."

...Or maybe it's only people who REFUSE to think something is wrong with the mighty Halo that are the lifeless nerds.

People like myself, while enjoying the game, are still able to wonder why it looks mediocre and stair-stepped on shapes or ships flying in the sky... Don't let your inner fanboy let you ignore that the pixelized look of the campaign is real; compare it to the GRAW2 single-player campaign or Warhawk and you'll notice the resolution drop in Halo 3...
Reply

Posted: Sep 29th 2007 12:42AM Darthweder said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow this guy is one hell of a fanboy, i took edwardokelly's suggestion and read his posts. He actually said that games are better without DLC! Now if they nickel and dime you for stuff they should have included at the start, that's bad. But who can say that Shivering Isles was a bad DLC?

No ones making you buy the DLC.
Reply

Posted: Sep 29th 2007 7:05AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
yea... but the thing is nobody cares about warhawk. so what if the game is scaled?! It's gorgeous, bottom line. 170 million in sales, nuff said. go home nerd.
Reply

Posted: Oct 1st 2007 12:52AM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
First off, on the whole HD thing. if you own an HD tv, and have played Halo 3 on both an HD and a non-HD, you DO see a difference. Mainly in the smoothness of the graphics. On a non-HD tv, the edges are a little rough looking, but still good. All Microsoft means is that Halo 3 RUNS in 1080p, not that it IS 1080p. Grpahics make not a good game. I know a few games that are graphic gems, but suck all ass.

Halo 3 is, overall, an insanely solid game, and it does deserve a 9/10. Yes, it has its flaws. But the Co-op is revolutionary (how many games have 4 player co-op?). the skulls add a whole new demension of replay value, and the reworking of multiplayer matchmaking sets the bar higher than ever before.

So, yes, Halo 3 could be a bit more polished here and there, but overall, you'll be hard pressed to find an OVERALL better game. That's what Halo 3 delivers, exceptional overall power, rather than focusing on just one single aspect of gaming.
Reply

Posted: Oct 4th 2007 1:31PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
your an idiot sony fan, and playstation SUCKS!!!...it wasnt as good as N64 (GO GOLDEN EYE!!!) and it isnt as good as Xbox...even Wii and Gamecube are better!!!
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:53PM WackyCoffee said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
... probably because they're not as bias as some people, maybe :)

People are acting as though the magic number of 720p automatically determines the rating of a game's graphics.

When reviewers say the graphics look good they are zooming in with a camera and counting the pixels on the screen... they are looking at the screen with just their normal old eyes I assume... imagine that!

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:54PM WackyCoffee said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
... that was in response to JesseJames post above.
Reply

Posted: Sep 30th 2007 6:08PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
errr no, 720p does not define a good game but it should at LEAST define a NEXT generation game. Is this not the xbox 360 we are talking about?

Seriously, the game that will outdo every OTHER game in the existence of the 360 (until Halo 4) should at leave have 720p. They should have had it especially since the 360 does has all their games in 1080p (or so MS would have you believe if you believe their press releases).

I'm a PSWii owner and I'm not dumb enough to swallow everything. Using the SixAxis for Lair without an option to use the analog sticks was a dumb move. Heavenly Sword is a fantastic game but 2-3 hours too short from being great. I can admit that.

Everyone agreeing that Halo 3 is a 10/10 perfect game and nothing will ever touch in in their lifetime attitude is a bit much to swallow. I'm sorry, if you can't see at least a couple of shortcomings of Halo 3 (Last gen graphics, why not 40 player MP or anything else revolutionary) then you have to be labeled of the zealots. I mean a 10/10 game should have something new/different than what's been done back in 2001? If you can tell me something that is revolutionary about Halo 3 and that hasn't been done on a console or PC before then I'll eat my words. Till then, I call bullshit on all the Halo 3 reviews that score it 10/10 or 99/100. Higher than Bioshock even.. at least they had a stronger story, better music and innovative use of the environment and weapons.
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:56PM (Unverified) said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Yikes!
I havent seen such over-blown praise for a game like this since, well, since Halo 2.

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:55PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Halo3 running at 720p would be a recipe for RRoD and lawsuits.. 1080p? lol, not unless they pack an Intercooler with it.

But, seriously, you want graphics, go play Gears of War or KillZone2.

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 4:57PM (Unverified) said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Well, I'd play Killzone 2 if it was out, :-).
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 8:40PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Bioshock for the win B*tches!
Reply

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Just another FPS?

Let me correct you...

Thee FPS!

Last night there was over half a million people playing at that time. This isn't fanboyism talking but when a PS3 game reaches that number of online users I'll eat my hat...

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:00PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Jesse, you truly are an idiot. Just because someone put a picture out there this has to be true, I have a picture of a bat faced boy, does that mean he exists, relax and quit with all the lie talk, please post a link where this is being replicated i e another source with the same findings

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:01PM Ironhide Delta said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Point of order, you can't see the 640p resolution on an enhanced def tv. So, ergo, it is hi def by virtu of it only being visible on a high def tv.

They've said it, I'll say it. Artistically, Halo 4 has some incredible graphics. Lighting is second to none, not to mention the overall style was not photorealism, but artistic realism. Suck eggs, nay sayers.

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:02PM BananaBoat said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
Game was ruined for me by a combination of Jaggies, Shortness, HORRIBLE friendly AI (damn marines drove me around AIMLESSLY and couldn't hit the broad side of a barn), and a horrendous (Spoiler Alert, Spoiler Alert, Zomg spoiler alert) ending that makes no sense. What prevented the *SPOILER* chief from climbing to the front of the ship like the arbiter did? SO POINTLESS! I also love it how *SPOILERS* the legendary ending leaves the universe open for either videogame or novel sequels.

*SPOILERS* Really Bungie? The last thing you want us to remember of the Chief, is him being a Jacka** to Cortana? Gahhhhhhh. So many bugs, framerate stutters, and it's not even running 720p to boot? What was bungie doing for THREE YEARS?! If it weren't for the multiplayer, this thing would be even worse than Halo 2. So dissapointed Bungie!

Posted: Sep 28th 2007 5:14PM WackyCoffee said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
Hmmmm, I don't think he had time to crawl up to the front with the Arbiter... considering the chief almost flew out the back... and ALMOST got hit by a tank... and had to crawl his way to the point he made it to before the explosion.

... or did i miss something.
Reply

Featured Stories

Engadget

Engadget

TUAW

TUAW

Massively

Massively

WoW

WoW