10/10 GamePro

10/10 GameSpy

10/10 EuroGamer

10/10 Games Radar

10/10- 1UP

10/10 Pro-G

98/100 Game Trailers

97/100 Computer and Video Games

97/100 Team Xbox

96/100 Worth Playing

95/100 IGN

95/100 GamerNode

95/100 GameSpot


Discuss

97 Metascore so far, the same as Halo 1...

Not surprising, but good. No matter what the game gets rated at it'll still be the most played console game online for years to come.

I already played through have the campain, got it early from a friend shop not, gonna name it i have to say the campain is good till now havent tried the multiplayer since only few people have it till now however the game is not a 10+ il give it a 9

Game is good, had a gaming night on it this weekend, co-op is great fun, however, giving a game 10/10 or 100/100 don't you think that is over the top, there is always room for improvement, even if it is Halo.

Yeah but it's widely unpopular to give Halo a lesser note.

Yeah but it's widely unpopular to give Halo a lesser note.

This is very true, however with such a strong following as the Halo series has, i don't think a low score would stop people from buying it. It would totally need to suck for people to be turned away.

Reviews of 10/10 are a bit pointless

Review scores in general are pointless. Assigning some arbitary number onto a game really dosen't do much to help people make an informed decision whether to buy.

If you want to trust the paid shills that make up most of the mainstream gaming media whether you should spend your money on a game or not. By all means go with the reviews :)

I know everyone thinks a 10 out of 10 means perfect but it doesnt. It just means a really kick ass game. There is no number for a Perfect game because you are right there is no perfect game.

What would be the point of having a 10 scoring if no one ever could get a 10. I mean it would be like having an AO rating for video games and no one being able to make games for... oh wait... bad example.

Review scores in general are pointless. Assigning some arbitary number onto a game really dosen't do much to help people make an informed decision whether to buy.

If you want to trust the paid shills that make up most of the mainstream gaming media whether you should spend your money on a game or not. By all means go with the reviews :)

Gotta disagree. if i read a bunch of reviews where it's getting shitty marks, i'm avoiding it. I don't have time to waste playing crap, and if I can use the reviews as a crap filter, so much the better.

Gotta disagree. if i read a bunch of reviews where it's getting shitty marks, i'm avoiding it. I don't have time to waste playing crap, and if I can use the reviews as a crap filter, so much the better.

Fair enough. I guess I trust bad reviews more than good ones. If a game gets a bad score the reviewer obviously isn't being "paid off". I don't pay much attention to good reviews until the internet buzz either validates or contradicts them.

That said I would prefer a friend's opinion or a demo any day over a review.

So you would believe SDF's review of Bioshock. They gave it a 5/10. Which is the lowest score on the interwebs. I usually dont go by the score, I usually read reviews and look at all the pros and cons, and that is how I would make a decision based on reviews.

So you would believe SDF's review of Bioshock. They gave it a 5/10. Which is the lowest score on the interwebs.

No because SDF are a bunch of retards.

Or they are playing a practical joke on anyone that reads their site :)

What I mean is that if "mainstream" sites are giving universally bad reviews to a game. It is not likely to be good as nobody pays/gives incentives for bad reviews. The only people that would rate a game poorly when it didn't deserve it are retarded fan boys and or people joking around for the hell of it.

What I am getting at is that I never buy a game based solely off a reviewers score. Nor do I see a reviewers score as the one true indication of a games worth.

All that said I am looking forward to Halo 3.

Yeah... Reviews of Halo series is something over thr top really. 97 of 100! For what? For dam simple shooter? With the only way - shoot all things up. Yes with cutscenes. But no innovation, no technologically advanced graphics, no RPG elements. Simple Shoot-em-up then watch cutscene. How it can get 97 out of 100? HOW? For what reasons?

Great graphics? - no.

Great story? I can easyly find better one, but sort of.

Great gameplay? Nope - repetative, boring, simple shooting. Even no keys for locked doors or some HL2 stule plug that Plug into the wall riddle..

So Why it's getting so high scores? Even more than much better title - Bioshock! (yes that title is not the best game - but it's way better and less score!) How for heck sake game with gameplay of doom2 and graphics of last gen with not bad story can get 10 out of 10 and 100 out of 100? HOW? Marketing? Dunno.

IMO - 80 out of 100 is pretty good for this game.

Hotcooler, Im completly ignoring all of your posts from now on.

I know everyone thinks a 10 out of 10 means perfect but it doesnt. It just means a really kick ass game. There is no number for a Perfect game because you are right there is no perfect game.

What would be the point of having a 10 scoring if no one ever could get a 10. I mean it would be like having an AO rating for video games and no one being able to make games for... oh wait... bad example.

I'm gonna disagree with you there. A 10 should mean about as near to a perfect game as possible, so if maybe the campaign is a tad too easy but everything else about it is perfect, it deserves a 10. It's something that should only be awarded to games that really did fit this quality, such as Ocarina of Time and the original Pokemon game; where something often substantially new and damned near perfect. Despite its amazingness, I don't think that Halo 3 deserves a 10. 9.9 is a fairly realistic score, though I would personally have given it a 9.7 (I did try it recently in-store) - anything between a 9 and 9.9, but a 10 is too much. Halo 3 is most definitely NOT an Ocarina of Time or Super Mario 64.

Yeah... Reviews of Halo series is something over thr top really. 97 of 100! For what? For dam simple shooter? With the only way - shoot all things up. Yes with cutscenes. But no innovation, no technologically advanced graphics, no RPG elements. Simple Shoot-em-up then watch cutscene. How it can get 97 out of 100? HOW? For what reasons?

Great graphics? - no.

Great story? I can easyly find better one, but sort of.

Great gameplay? Nope - repetative, boring, simple shooting. Even no keys for locked doors or some HL2 stule plug that Plug into the wall riddle..

So Why it's getting so high scores? Even more than much better title - Bioshock! (yes that title is not the best game - but it's way better and less score!) How for heck sake game with gameplay of doom2 and graphics of last gen with not bad story can get 10 out of 10 and 100 out of 100? HOW? Marketing? Dunno.

IMO - 80 out of 100 is pretty good for this game.

Apply this to every game, and no game would get higher then an 8.5 (out of 10).

Completely ignorant post.

Legendtaker117, You may ignore them - but that's truth. All Halo's get the score 95-97 why? Dunno. But PC vesions of theese shooters were better than console ones - and even can't reach 80 out of 100 on metacritic! Why? Cause we know much better games. First HALO get around 80 average. Cause dont you think that 100 out of 100 is impossible for Halo 1 on PC? Play Magazine think that that's cool to have max score... halo-heads? Console reviewers? Wich never played PC games before? Dunno. Halo 2 Avereged at 72... (Wich can be degraded to 68..).

Wherez that 97 out of 100? Where? Can you tell me? For me Console Versiond need to be scored at 80 (all of them). And for PC market - 60 out of 100. Cause of all things in previous post.

I belive that story is good. But why they cant make good graphics, good character models, good gameplay or make it less repetative? Just why?

Yes that's the main multiplaer game on Xbox. But it can not score over 90! It's IMPOSSIBLE for that sort of game.

Halo series for Xbox is like Half-life series for PC. But Half life is coming to you. Just look for the top games on platforms - andplay them. Guess what - Halo series is not even close to some titles. All the stuff is my IMHO!


Edit: Canuck, I'm not saying that Halo is a bad game. I'm sayind that nothing changed, story is average-good, graphics... better than previous but above average for the time. Gameplay - that's the main problem. It's not changed from "Doom" times - shoot all bad guys get a reward - no puzzles, no brain activity, just shoot and watch for the story. Completely linear and nothing innovative (Yeah exept no lifebar). If it was even machinima (only cutscenes) - then yes it can get 95 out of 100 for the produssors work. But not for graphics and gameplay. IMO.

Legendtaker117, You may ignore them - but that's truth. All Halo's get the score 95-97 why? Dunno. But PC vesions of theese shooters were better than console ones - and even can't reach 80 out of 100 on metacritic! Why? Cause we know much better games. First HALO get around 80 average. Cause dont you think that 100 out of 100 is impossible for Halo 1 on PC? Play Magazine think that that's cool to have max score... halo-heads? Console reviewers? Wich never played PC games before? Dunno. Halo 2 Avereged at 72... (Wich can be degraded to 68..).

Halo was originally praised and loved because it was the first console shooter to rival PC shooters. The reason the PC versions "sucked" in terms of metascore is because the PC version came out years later so the technology was no longer great and it's basically just replaying a game we've already played.

Wherez that 97 out of 100? Where? Can you tell me? For me Console Versiond need to be scored at 80 (all of them). And for PC market - 60 out of 100. Cause of all things in previous post.

You're talking as if all PC shooters are godly. Problem is, many PC shooters are decent to mediocre and many more just plain suck. Yes, some of them are very well done, but that doesn't mean that Halo 3 sucks because they're good. Halo has always been a high-quality, balanced game, something that is very hard to do with any shooter, and only a few series have actually succeeded at this.

I belive that story is good. But why they cant make good graphics, good character models, good gameplay or make it less repetative? Just why?

Halo has all of those, lol.

Yes that's the main multiplaer game on Xbox. But it can not score over 90! It's IMPOSSIBLE for that sort of game.

Halo series for Xbox is like Half-life series for PC. But Half life is coming to you. Just look for the top games on platforms - andplay them. Guess what - Halo series is not even close to some titles. All the stuff is my IMHO!

I've played some of the best PC shooters, and yes, they are awesome, but so is Halo. In case you haven't realized, it's VERY hard for a console shooter to rival a PC shooter in terms of control and refinement (excluding the Wii) yet Halo does just that, though the playing ground isn't quite even, and never will be (except for Shadowrun...).

You're completely entitled to your own opinion, I just think that some of the things you're saying are stated far too much as if they're fact, and they're simply not.

Edit- Halo still offers strategy, as does any other shooter. Not many others to date are offering too much different, save a special few, and sometimes it doesn't really matter, so long as the game is of high quality and isn't stale. And Halo actually does have some innovative things I expect ot see in upcoming console shooters - the replay editor, which is an ingenious idea in the way that it's done, and the Forge, which finally puts modding tools in the hands of console gamers. I know this stuff has been doable in PC shooters for years, but bringing all of this to the console, more casual market is a feat in itself. Making it easy-to-use is another on its own.

Halo was originally praised and loved because it was the first console shooter to rival PC shooters. The reason the PC versions "sucked" in terms of metascore is because the PC version came out years later so the technology was no longer great and it's basically just replaying a game we've already played.



You're talking as if all PC shooters are godly. Problem is, many PC shooters are decent to mediocre and many more just plain suck. Yes, some of them are very well done, but that doesn't mean that Halo 3 sucks because they're good. Halo has always been a high-quality, balanced game, something that is very hard to do with any shooter, and only a few series have actually succeeded at this.



Halo has all of those, lol.



I've played some of the best PC shooters, and yes, they are awesome, but so is Halo. In case you haven't realized, it's VERY hard for a console shooter to rival a PC shooter in terms of control and refinement (excluding the Wii) yet Halo does just that, though the playing ground isn't quite even, and never will be (except for Shadowrun...).

You're completely entitled to your own opinion, I just think that some of the things you're saying are stated far too much as if they're fact, and they're simply not.

Edit- Halo still offers strategy, as does any other shooter. Not many others to date are offering too much different, save a special few, and sometimes it doesn't really matter, so long as the game is of high quality and isn't stale. And Halo actually does have some innovative things I expect ot see in upcoming console shooters - the replay editor, which is an ingenious idea in the way that it's done, and the Forge, which finally puts modding tools in the hands of console gamers. I know this stuff has been doable in PC shooters for years, but bringing all of this to the console, more casual market is a feat in itself. Making it easy-to-use is another on its own.

I couldnt have said it better myself :D.

Im just sick and tired of people dissing on Halo when they have never even played it, judging by what hotcooler has said, he most likely has never played any of the Halo games. Im not saying everybody has to like it, but its just simply crazy and stupid to sit there and say that its the same as any other shooter, has crappy gameplay, and it doesnt deserve the praise it gets. If that was true then millions of people wouldnt be playing it. For example I didnt like Bioshock, not because it sucked, Im sure its a great game, but because it just wasnt a type of game that appeals to me. And obviously Halo is not a type of game that appeals to him.(if he's ever played it, and not just trolling)

Canuck - For Example - Bioshock for X360 is equal to the PC version. But that's not the point. The game with some problems, even some (as not good graphics for year 2007 and you cant say that that's not true) and repetative shooting (why they can't make some puzzles - yes you can say that that's personal, but...) cant get average score of 97 of 100. That's not right.

And ok - Why do users vote averaged at 8.4 out of 10? Not even 9.0. Yes may-be not all played the game - but I think it would not reach 9.0 point at all.

P.S. User score for Halo and Halo 2 for Xbox is 8.2 and 7.9... Where's 95-100? Why not even 9.0? Dunno.

Time passes - you need to change something, not only cosmetically. Look at upcoming titles - innovative, technological, massive. Games are constantly changing, and IMO Halo need to change too. I cant play the same game for the third time - gameplay not changed at all. Yes - you say it's HALO. But dam - You never thought you want something more than that?

Edit: I've played Halo 1, (skipped Halo 2 cause PC version was crap..) and I'm playing Halo 3 (offline till 26 :D)
Edit2: And again I'm not saying it's ad game. I say the only thing - It can not score 100 out of 100.
Edit3: And you cannot compare Halo to average shooter - Halo is TOP shooter for Xbox - so you need to compare it to other TOP shooters. IMO.

Canuck - For Example - Bioshock for X360 is equal to the PC version. But that's not the point. The game with some problems, even some (as not good graphics for year 2007 and you cant say that that's not true) and repetative shooting (why they can't make some puzzles - yes you can say that that's personal, but...) cant get average score of 97 of 100. That's not right.

And ok - Why do users vote averaged at 8.4 out of 10? Not even 9.0. Yes may-be not all played the game - but I think it would not reach 9.0 point at all.

P.S. User score for Halo and Halo 2 for Xbox is 8.2 and 7.9... Where's 95-100? Why not even 9.0? Dunno.

Time passes - you need to change something, not only cosmetically. Look at upcoming titles - innovative, technological, massive. Games are constantly changing, and IMO Halo need to change too. I cant play the same game for the third time - gameplay not changed at all. Yes - you say it's HALO. But dam - You never thought you want something more than that?

Edit: I've played Halo 1, and I'm playing Halo 3 (offline till 26 :D)

The reason I'm not complaining for having 3 games all with very similar gameplay is because Bungie found a sweet spot when they made the original Halo - very well balanced, good story, great graphics (for its time) and amazing physics. It basically respresented what every other console shooter aspired to be. Now, if you think about it, the game has already got a perfect balance, so why completely redo it? Yes, Bungie needs to add new things to keep everything interesting, but they're simply building on top of what's already there, not redoing it all and potentially ruining the series. By doing that, they keep things interesting and fresh while still based on the addicting gameplay that is Halo. The other things they've added have been innovative yet not changing the core gameplay itself. Things such as the Forge, the video editor, the stat tracking and the campaign co-op and metagame all have built on the incredible game that Bungie first started, and yes, sometimes one may want to see something new and groundbreaking, but that's what other shooters and Halo Wars are for.

To sum it up, I play Halo because it's Halo, and it's already nailed one sweet spot. I play other shooters to find other sweet spots in that shooter genre, such as Rainbow Six, Half-Life and Battlefield. You want something completely different, you play one of those. You want to keep with the same sweet spot with new content, you play Halo 3.

And the reason Halo gets only decent user scores is because MANY people feel that Halo sucks or want to even out the ratings and give it 0s or 1s to make up for it. The Gamespot user ratings are often far more realistic then IGN's. IGN and Co. are areas of trolling concentration, at least for reviews.

Edit- I completely agree that Halo 3 doesn't deserve a perfect 10. Anything from 9 to 9.9 are fine by me though. It's an amazing game, it's just not perfect though. And if you haven't played Halo 2 then buy it and play it on your 360. It's still a great game, even today.

Only thing I feel playing Halo 3 is De-Ja-Wu..... A hell of a De-Ja-Wu...

P.S. About Character models.

http://postthatpic.com/files/1151/Clipboard021.jpg

Is that a Char model of year 2007? I feel like it grabbed straight from Halo 2 - It is VERY low poly!

He's like Pinokio..

Edit: - Why He's not Pinokio..?
http://www.jeboscreenshots.com//images/screenshots/2203292020670053.jpg

Even This Guy is looking better! And he's from RTS game!
http://postthatpic.com/files/1151/Harrys/Clipboard01.jpg

I AM PROUD OF THE SORCES ABOVE IN THERE RATINS..
...
...
..
..
...
...
..
..
I LOVE HALO
I LOVE HALO2
I LOVE HALO3

And I feel like Microsoft spent Much more money for ADS company , then for game developement...

MS will spend a helluva lot on ads, so long as it sells more copies of Halo then a higher quality model would.

And yes, that model is pretty low poly, but the face is fine, except for those ears... straight out of Halo 2.

Ok. Campaign's completed. As far as I can tell it's about 6 hours on Normal...World saved. Halo activated. Peace and stuff.

Story is good.. not best but good.

Sound is normal. Voice acting is good..

Gameplay... as I sayd earlyer - repetative... you get bored of shooting and driving... no puzzles at all. =(

Graphics.... oh... it's not so good.. =(
Models is low poly'd.. Textures are low res.. There are only 2 things that are beautifully looking. Rainforest and sunrises\sunsets and some space cutscenes... Other scenes sems to be from year 2004.. For such a game it's really bad graphics.
It's looking as Halo 2 with HDR...

My score is

Story: 9\10
Presentation: 7\10
Graphics: 5\10
Gameplay: 6\10
Sound: 9\10
Replayability: 6\10 (5 - multiplayer, 1 - campaign)

Overal: 7.5\10

hahaha you're going to be murdered by people who haven't even played it yet!

Review scores in general are pointless. Assigning some arbitary number onto a game really dosen't do much to help people make an informed decision whether to buy.

If you want to trust the paid shills that make up most of the mainstream gaming media whether you should spend your money on a game or not. By all means go with the reviews :)

I Disagree with you, Most of the time I check a game score before I buy it, If The Game score is above 80 i'll normally buy it

Graphics.... oh... it's not so good.. =(
Models is low poly'd.. Textures are low res.. There are only 2 things that are beautifully looking. Rainforest and sunrises\sunsets and some space cutscenes... Other scenes sems to be from year 2004.. For such a game it's really bad graphics.
It's looking as Halo 2 with HDR...

Hotcooler - The X360 is merely a computer in a white box designed to plug into your TV. My point being, ITS GOT LIMITATIONS. The models being "low poly" is the reason why you do get the nice scenery. The game designers specifically said that their intentions were to make the map and gameplay area as expansive as possible, in order to get that far view distance and great scenery something needs to be given up. With the console only having 512mb of DDR3 RAM you can only expect that it would have trouble coping with High Poly Models and High Poly Scenery. If you've ever played Battlefield 2 you'll know that when you bump up your view distance and leave all other models at a high detail, your computer generally tends to sh*te itself, its the same case for the Xbox 360.

However, in all fairness I do agree, the game doesnt deserve 10...but it does deserve at least 9-9.5
Reviewers aren't gonna give a bad score, they'll get ragged for being 'unique arty prats' and with the large marjority of the consumer market deadset on the trilogy, those that may have the courage to have a differing opinion aren't gonna be too supported.
I'm just glad the stories finished...I wonder if in 10 years we'll be seeing the 1st game on a $40 plastic box which has all the 'old classics'. Does anyone know what I'm talking about?

Replayability: 6/10???? Are you kidding me? Halo 3 has more replay value then any ****ing Xbox 360 game to date, and much more then many PC games! Have you even played the ****ing multiplayer yet? If you have, it sure must not be to your style or you must not have many friends, because it sets ****ing STANDARDS for multiplayer for ALL games! Seriously, that rating has to be straight outta SDF.

Canuck 5 of 5 for multiplier + 1 of 5 for campaign. Read better.

The campaign is excellent, I have had a blast playing the campaign. I would give the campaign 9.5/10 cause theres room for improvement, and multiplayer a 10/10, so overall a 10/10 for me. Campaign was perfect except that it could have been longer.

Why the hell would campaign count for the same amount as MP? At least that makes a bit more sense, but still, no one's gonna try to play campaign more then MP on almost any game with both SP and MP. It should be an overall rating of how long the whole product lasts, which would be a 10 IMO, or at least a 9.

And the sound should also be a 10, some of the best sound in a game to date.

The campaign is excellent, I have had a blast playing the campaign. I would give the campaign 9.5/10 cause theres room for improvement, and multiplayer a 10/10, so overall a 10/10 for me. Campaign was perfect except that it could have been longer.

this is why the halo franchise takes so much crap.

a 9.5/10 when there's room for improvement and it could have been longer? brainwashed, i tell ya. :p

Am I the only one that doesn't think this game looks bad graphically? It looks fine for what it is... And after playing it I think they suite the game perfectely...

The campaign is excellent, I have had a blast playing the campaign. I would give the campaign 9.5/10 cause theres room for improvement, and multiplayer a 10/10, so overall a 10/10 for me. Campaign was perfect except that it could have been longer.

When it comes too Multiplayer and Value, Halo 3 is easily a 10/10... The campaign? 7.5/10...

No OMG moments, nothing blew me away... Story felt lacking...

But I've only played the last 3/4... (at a friends house... No 360 myself...)

well, its because M$/Bungie had 3+yrs to make this game and this is what they released. oblivion looks better than halo 3 and halo 2 has a higher probability of ppl coming back to play it.

for me

story 8/10 (they ended it as if more was coming and didnt truly have a real concept) but they did fulfill some things, felt rushed tho, very short SP mode. MP, i would rather go halo 2.

visuals 6/10 come on, they had yrs to perfect this game! shoot, half life 2 looks better than this thing!

sound 8.5/10 sound was actually pretty good for my 5.1 setup. finally had something else to load up with.

gameplay 7/10 the weapons felt too soft....most were all leveled out and i did not like that at all. sounds were also switched around for what purpose? meh. controlling was decent, felt nice as always. hud looked way better IMO. too straight driven...you most likely never get lost, its never confusing, you always know whats going to happen.... :( i like my games with some challenge now!

I agree that the campaign deserves maybe an 8, but I felt that there were some fairly epic moments, especially on legendary. The scarabs, the one air combat portion of the game, and some moments like that feel much more epic on legendary and lead to a better campaign experience. Multiplayer/value is a sure 10/10. The graphics are nothing amazing, but they do look nice in the campaign, and decent in MP. The lighting is superb but the detail is really a notch below what we've come to expect from high-quality next-gen titles. The awesome lighting, though, keeps the game looking good, and I believe the graphics deserve a 7.5/10. The sound is also amazing, a sure 10/10 IMO - all the battle chatter in campaign makes things far more "intense", and even funny at times. Overall, it's an awesome game that feels balanced, fun and long-lasting, even if there are flaws, so I'll give the game a 9.5/10.

yea, it's the best game i've played in life.. that might be a bit dramatic, but it rteally is

now that's just stupid

Im gonna change my campaign score to 9/10 because

*SPOILER ALERT*













The Final Boss was weak, I mean come on. Guilty Spark. I was very disapointed with this. Also this doesnt have anything to do with the gameplay, but the way Sergeant Johnson died was weak as well. He should have like stayed behind to blow the place up, cause it should have been the only way, but Nooooooooo he gets killed by Guilty freakin Spark.













*SPOILERS DONE*

As time moves on and things that were innovative, become the standard, the "next" idea, product, and/or service has to become next best thing. Its called progress. That how we as humans have gone from horses and candles, to where we are at now.

Halo 3, though very fun I think is just average by todays standards. Its not a bad thing. to tell you the truth Im glad I bought it, playing it and look forward to many many more hours of playing it. Im excited about finishing the story over and over and over. Does the game deserve a perfect score, i really dont think so. There has been alot of FPS between the times of Halo 1 till Halo 3, some were really good and some were really bad. Halo 3 in my eyes falls some where in the middle.

When Halo was first released it was innovative, no doubt. But shortly there after, the innovation became the norm. Halo 3 has not done anything in my eyes to be labeled innovative, unlike its older brother Halo. I rate the game personally as a 7.5 out of 10. Not the best ever but I have seen alot worse.