I am greatly confused by the success that halo 3 has had. I mean I enjoy the game and I've spent time playing though both campaign and at least 10 hours of multiplayer. I am looking for a fanboy because I've heard everyone argue against the game. A lot of those complaints I agree with, but that's besides the point.
Can someone come here and rant for a paragraph or two on halo 3 so I can try to understand what you see in it

I hate Halo 3. Although I will acknowledge it is not a bad FPS. It is just severely over hyped, and to be honest it is a generic FPS game.

And Master Chief isn't any great shakes either.

I would also like to know what people see in Halo, honestly neither the game-play or story is anything new. Shoot shit...Wow... Aliens are invading earth? So what?

Although I'll admit, the Multi-player isn't all that bad, it's just too much "Spawn-Kill-Die-Repeat" for me.

We already have a Halo 3 thread.

Well... I dont play too much but its fun, I like the controls, I liked the story enough to buy all the books that came out for it, it looks good visually(not realistic brown but not cartoonishly bright either), and the multiplayer never gets boring.

Well sense I've gone the extra mile over the last six or seven years to dig through the story, I fully understand whats going on. Its a lot more than just "oh no aliens are on Earth, kill them!" its also about humanity's survival against a superior enemy (The Covenant), an ancient race of beings (the Forerunners) that committed mass suicide in an attempt to stop an evil parasite (the Flood) from consuming them all.

Then there is the story behind the Master Chief himself, a kid who was kidnapped at the age of six to be trained and augmented into a super soldier, and eventually became the last symbol of hope for humanity in their 27 year long war against The Covenant.

So in short, the story is what I've always loved most about Halo, I've always loved the multiplayer too, but I'll admit that its not the best out there.

Also my apologizes If my grammar comes off as a little bad, didn't get much sleep last night, what with preparing for Christmas day and all.

I have no problem with it except this part really:

It has a 9.5 score on gamespot with this tag: "Halo 3 builds upon the concepts of Halo 2 in ways that you'd expect, but there are also new modes and options that send the series in exciting new directions."
Meaning its just Halo 2 with some new levels a new gun and better graphics. explain to me why does a game get an auto score of "i want to take it to bed with me" When its nothing special?

*Also I know gamespot can go search for someone to pleasure them but too lazy to find somewhere else

**And really a 9.5? based on this Half life gets a 17.4

Well the answer is that it's a competent shooter, the only thing truly remarkable is the hype and its the sequel to some of the greatest games ever made. Bungie has one of the worlds largest fanbasses, if large magazines started giving poor reviews to some peoples favorite franchises, they would loose customers: essentially, they sell out. If a game is trully bad, then they will throw the game in the mud: why I still subscribe to them, but halo 3, mass effect, COD 4 all got ten. While I have to admit, each one is a good game, its not anywhere as good as lesser hyped games. For example Fable is one of the best game I have ever played, yet they gave a one page review and a 8.9. Then Halo 2 comes out: the game is fun and all, but it has major problems, many of the game mechanics are flawed, everything is unpolsihed, glitches everywhere, lesser maps and gameplay: gets the highest score at the time. They hide behind all these flaws by saying "no game is perfect, every game has its flaws", and that is true, but you shouldnt ignore them if they are major issues. For example, one of the major (and few) improvements from halo 2 was the user frendliness: making gametypes in halo 1 was a bitch. Like the pistol which offered great ballance (wow! now you arent automaticly dead when the other team gets both snipers or spawn next to someone with the rockets! SNIPPING WHORE!), they come across greatness and then decide to throw it out, reducing the user frendliness from the 90's to the negatives. Think about what history would be like if smart people used this attitude: Christopher Columbus: WOW! new continents, fertile land! rich mountains! thick forests! Wow! this land may be the future of the progressing world! But now that we've found it, lets do something completely different, lets say, circle the globe, and dont think back, tell anyone about it, or make any further attention or investment on this." Good thing Columbus didnt work for bungie.

To date, the most reliable reviewer i know of is yahtzee. I know, he does it in a humerous fashion, but he is nearly 100% right on the money each time. As of now the underdog developers are the best i thinks. Bethesda, Gearbox, Bioware. I find that these companies nearly always live up to their hype. My personal favorite is Gearbox, because companies like bungie will listen to their impatient eight year old fans and shave say, 3 months off of development and poslishing time, knowing they'll sell record numbers anyways. Gearbox is different, they need 3 or 4 extra months they'll take it, and tell the eight year olds to fuck off.

all in all, halo 3 is one of those above average games. If it was the first released, it would have gotten average sales.

Hmmm, I can't really agree that Yahtzee's review is super grand. While I agree with it, he purposefully leaves out the Multiplayer, which is why people play the game anyway.

Though, then again, the Multiplayer is really just like the game, except the Elites are smarter, so...hmmm...

I don't know anyone who's a real fanboy of Halo 3. It's more the iconic quality of Halo that makes it appear that way. Sure, we replaced the answers on a few Trivial Pursuit cards with 'Master Chief', but if the orange box had been coming out that week, we probably would've written 'Gordon Freeman'. Personally, I haven't played enough of the game to form an opinion.

Hoax:
I would also like to know what people see in Halo, honestly neither the game-play or story is anything new. Shoot shit...Wow... Aliens are invading earth? So what?

Although I'll admit, the Multi-player isn't all that bad, it's just too much "Spawn-Kill-Die-Repeat" for me.

thats funny seeing as the aliens werent invading earth, they were trying to activate the rings. i thought the story was very well done for a shooter, and along with the books it offered metaphorical critisism of fanatic religions.

i do agree about the "shoot shit" part, although that doesnt make it any less fun. the whole point of the multiplayer, for me at least, is that its a no-brainer, and you can pick it up any time and play just to have fun. strategy isnt really nescassary. i consider it more of a social game, like mario party, but violent. good alone, great with friends.

The only good thing about Halo was the music. The story was meh and all games at the moment have super duper graphics so they don't really matter. I also hate the way he jumps! The jumping in that game feels so akward.

I don't get why people pick on Halo for being a generic shooter.

Newsflash: SO IS EVERY OTHER SHOOTER EVER FUCKING MADE.

You get into a shooter because you like the story, the graphics, or the gimmicks. We like Bioshock for the story, the percieved choices, and we thought the plasmids would be neat. We played Resistance because the story looked interesting and it was the only shooter on the PS3's launch lineup. We played Gears of War because the gameplay is ten shades of awesome, and also, chainsaw bayonets.

We played Halo 3 because it has a huge online following meaning we'll get years of guaranteed, varied multiplayer. It has a decent sci-fi story (funny how people who criticise it's stupidity and simplicity don't actually know what the story is, right Hoax?) and the gameplay is solidly built and well balanced. These are Halo's attributes - like them or leave them.

The main reason people rip on it is because it's in the spotlight and gets noticed by more people - also, it's trendy to tear shreds off things that people like, in the same way it's cool to be into stuff no-one has ever heard of.

That's why Halo is at the same time the most popular and most vilified FPS of our time.

Do the other generic shooters get the hype that Halo 3 did? Oh and newsflash you were actually listing things that made those other games standout in some respect and therefore not be generic, so while you are busy shouting you contradict yourself in the next breath....real nice.

1. You need to know the whole story.
2. I hate people making up crap about games just to make them look better.
3. Halo is a great FPS and deserves a 9.5 rating for its dramatic ending.
4. No, I will not tell you the ending!
5. Why the heck are you people trying to compare a action/si-fi shooter to a mystery/horror
type shooter like Bio-shock? Is it because you can "see into the future" that shows
Bio-shock "beating" Halo 3 because its better in "real time interaction" with the under-
water world that you end up in.
6. Some people hate other people refering to graphics on every forum so **** you for
replying.
7. Everyone is so hung up on X-box live they fink the whole story sucks, and I quote

!!!"WHY"!!!

I am sort of a Halo fanboy (see my name) and i have to say that the story is why i like the game so much. I have read all of the books and other media. Multiplayer is fun, altough it would be nice if every player on XBL wasn't a complete asshole. I think that they were geniouses to bring the idea of recording every single match to watch and take screenshots from. The sharing system for the files is nice too. I also liked how they brought level editing to a console game.

Kermi:
It has a decent sci-fi story (funny how people who criticise it's stupidity and simplicity don't actually know what the story is, right Hoax?) and the gameplay is solidly built and well balanced. These are Halo's attributes - like them or leave them.

For your information, I do know the story of Halo, not the full story mind you, just the story from the games, buying books should not be manditory in order to fully enjoy a game therefore I refuse to dish out the extra cash. Anyhoo, Halo's story is below average, it's better than the average FPS but it struck me as far too bland, oh it wasn't all that bad back in Halo: Combat Evolved but it felt as if they were making it up as they go along.

shadow skill:
Do the other generic shooters get the hype that Halo 3 did? Oh and newsflash you were actually listing things that made those other games standout in some respect and therefore not be generic, so while you are busy shouting you contradict yourself in the next breath....real nice.

My god, were you born dense or accomplish it through a lifetime of practice? Every shooter follows the same principle. First Person Shooters are going to be very samey from game to game by their very definition, so people bitching about Halo being a generic shooter might as well complain because their new hat is doing a lousy job of keeping their balls warm.
All they have to make them different is the story behind them, what they look like, and their assorted gimmickry. This provides different gameplay experiences and different levels of enjoyment for different people.

You can't call one game generic without calling them ALL generic. If Halo is 'generic' in that you walk around, point a gun and kill things, then so are Killzone 2, Resistance, Gears of War, System Shock, Bioshock, Duke Nukem 3D, Deus Ex, and Doom.

Of course these games are different - story, gimmicks, gamepaly idiosyncracies make them so. But basic elements of gameplay remain constant.

Hoax:
For your information, I do know the story of Halo, not the full story mind you, just the story from the games, buying books should not be manditory in order to fully enjoy a game therefore I refuse to dish out the extra cash. Anyhoo, Halo's story is below average, it's better than the average FPS but it struck me as far too bland, oh it wasn't all that bad back in Halo: Combat Evolved but it felt as if they were making it up as they go along.

I haven't read the books either, but having actually played the game, I can tell you it's a little more complicated than "aliens are invading the earth". Not that there's anything wrong with "aliens are invading the earth", it's worked just fine in the past. But Halo 3 is a cylindrical peg and you're trying to jam it in the star-shaped hole.

Hoax:
Anyhoo, Halo's story is below average, it's better than the average FPS but it struck me as far too bland.

Is that not a tad contradictory...?

Sorry, sorry... anyways, I like the Halo series. I've played 1 and 2, and plan on getting 3 soon. The reason? Well, as someone has already pointed out, it is for the most part pretty well balanced. It may not have super-duper ethically challenged freedom a la Bioshock (although from what I've been hearing, that's all overrated anyway. But I digress), but what it does have are simple mechanics that have been tweaked and streamlined to near perfection. Grenades for instance. Simple, ie- you throw them, they blow up. But also incredibly fun: bounce 'em, plant 'em, even stick 'em (oh the joy of sticking a plasma grenade to the torso of an elite). Melee, as another point. Seems a bit dull at first, waving the arse end of your gun around. But then you come across a group of Covenant who are unalerted to your presence, and it becomes a case of 'How many of these buggers can I nut from behind before they catch me?'

Context is also important I suppose, especially when you remember that Halo is primarily a CONSOLE shooter. When CE came out, it was pretty groundbreaking in its realism- the AI for its time was fantastic, the levels were mahoosively epic, and the allowance of only two guns at a time meant you really had to think about what to bring along. Then when Halo 2 comes along, it introduces the dual wielding mechanic (which as far as I'm aware hadn't been implemented in a console shooter before) and completely does away with the health bar, something which everyone from Gears of War to Splinter Cell has since copied. As I haven't played 3 yet, I'm in no place to comment. But bubble shields look awesome!

To summarise this rambling bloated mess of a post... Halo is undoubtedly a very simple bunch of games, but by God they're fun. Fun! I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to play the last level of CE- the one where you have just 5 minutes to get your warthog from one end of the spaceship to the other before everything goes kablooie. It's linear and frustratingly difficult, but full of so many 'I can't believe I just did that!' moments you could make a Die Hard film out of it.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
[I challenge anyone who thinks otherwise to play the last level of CE- the one where you have just 5 minutes to get your warthog from one end of the spaceship to the other before everything goes kablooie. It's linear and frustratingly difficult, but full of so many 'I can't believe I just did that!' moments you could make a Die Hard film out of it.

That part of Halo CE was so fun in fact that they did something very similar at the end of Halo 3. Best warthog section ever.

Halo: Combat Evolved was innovative. Halo 2 and Halo 3 built upon and refined those innovations. There were a number of subtle, yet cleverly implemented mechanics, some had already been seen before in similar form, but nowhere had they been brought together so expertly as Halo: Combat Evolved, or in its sequals. I also found it a refrehing change from the Half-Life formula, which every story-driven action adventure game seemed to be adopting at the time. Here is a quick list of innovations off the top of my head:

(1) The rechargable shields, both on the Master Chief and some opponents. This simple system diffused a common problem in similar games; namely, surviving a confrontation with barely any health, and then proceeding to the next confrontation with little or no chance of success. The rechargable shields guarunteed at least a minimal level of health for each confrontation, and enough to pass any of them. There were also many interesting strategic options opened up by this mechanic, both defensively and offensively. For example, chasing down an Elite before he can take cover and recharge his shields.

(2) The two weapon limit. This solved one problem and opened a new level of strategy. Regarding the former, it solved the problem of navigating through a menu to select from a dozen weapons, which is a particular nuisance on the consoles with control pad. Regarding the latter, it opened the way for tactical decisions, such as deciding which weapons to carry into battle, and how best to make use of the weapons which you have. I think this contributes someway to the "never the same fight twice" effect which many experience with the Halo series.

(3) Overheating Covenent weaponary. In the Halo series the Covenent weapons rarely need reloading, rather, they have a set charge to use before being disposed of. This means that they are absent the standard problem of reloading, which usually injects a subtle layer of strategy to confrontations. This is compensated for by overheating, which provides a similar deficit to reloading, but with its own unique quirks. The same mechanic has reappeared many times since where weaponary does not need reloading, most recently in Bioware's Mass Effect.

(4) Melee attacks as a useful alternative. Chalk this up to my bad memory or lack of experience, but I do not remember melee attacks being the same before Halo: Combat Evovled. They were something you used at the beginning, often before acquiring a proper weapon, and were pathetically weak against stronger opponents. Throughout the Halo series, melee attacks were interesting and powerful alternatives, and in the right context would open up new tactical choices.

Half, if not all, of these innovations have made it into subsequent games, such that they seem to have been taken for granted. The main exception is Half-Life 2, which seems to have ignored the pack entirely. I should note, I do not consider this a bad thing, since I like the variation and Half-Life 2 is one of my favourites, but I just think it is mistaken to say that the Halo series is generic and unoriginal. There is plenty of innovation and refinement to be found, and its influence can be felt on almost every release since.

Iceman23:
Well sense I've gone the extra mile over the last six or seven years to dig through the story, I fully understand whats going on. Its a lot more than just "oh no aliens are on Earth, kill them!" its also about humanity's survival against a superior enemy (The Covenant), an ancient race of beings (the Forerunners) that committed mass suicide in an attempt to stop an evil parasite (the Flood) from consuming them all.

Then there is the story behind the Master Chief himself, a kid who was kidnapped at the age of six to be trained and augmented into a super soldier, and eventually became the last symbol of hope for humanity in their 27 year long war against The Covenant.

So in short, the story is what I've always loved most about Halo, I've always loved the multiplayer too, but I'll admit that its not the best out there.

The problem is that almost all of the story in the Halo series comes from the books, not the games. While it's all well and good that the universe has external material, you shouldn't have to read a book in order to enjoy the story in a game. Different mediums should be independent of each other, and it's Bungie's own fault that they didn't actually put any of the so-called great Halo story into the games.

intplee:

(2) The two weapon limit. This solved one problem and opened a new level of strategy.

This didnt add a new level of strategy , it just allowed the player to use their preferred weapon. Well, except in the case of the rocket launcher - which was always placed just before you needed it, thereby eliminating any strategy.

intplee:

(4) Melee attacks as a useful alternative. Chalk this up to my bad memory or lack of experience, but I do not remember melee attacks being the same before Halo: Combat Evovled. They were something you used at the beginning, often before acquiring a proper weapon, and were pathetically weak against stronger opponents. Throughout the Halo series, melee attacks were interesting and powerful alternatives, and in the right context would open up new tactical choices.

The one hit kill stealth melee attacks were in Goleneye

Melee attacks as a secondary weapon function were in Perfect Dark - Goldeneye's spiritual sucessor.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Grenades for instance. Simple, ie- you throw them, they blow up. But also incredibly fun: bounce 'em, plant 'em, even stick 'em (oh the joy of sticking a plasma grenade to the torso of an elite).

may i also add that sticky grenades are essentially timed mines - also from Perfect Dark

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

the levels were mahoosively epic

You mean like in Perfect Dark?

i could go on listing the features in Goldeneye and Perfect Dark that were copied and pasted into Halo. However i am instead going to advise you all to play these two games before making any more stupid comments about Halo and its so called innovations.

Kermi:

shadow skill:
Do the other generic shooters get the hype that Halo 3 did? Oh and newsflash you were actually listing things that made those other games standout in some respect and therefore not be generic, so while you are busy shouting you contradict yourself in the next breath....real nice.

My god, were you born dense or accomplish it through a lifetime of practice? Every shooter follows the same principle. First Person Shooters are going to be very samey from game to game by their very definition, so people bitching about Halo being a generic shooter might as well complain because their new hat is doing a lousy job of keeping their balls warm.
All they have to make them different is the story behind them, what they look like, and their assorted gimmickry. This provides different gameplay experiences and different levels of enjoyment for different people.

You can't call one game generic without calling them ALL generic. If Halo is 'generic' in that you walk around, point a gun and kill things, then so are Killzone 2, Resistance, Gears of War, System Shock, Bioshock, Duke Nukem 3D, Deus Ex, and Doom.

Of course these games are different - story, gimmicks, gamepaly idiosyncracies make them so. But basic elements of gameplay remain constant.

You really should learn how to use the english language first before you call someone dense. In this context the fact that fps' have simillar characteristics because they belong to the same genre is not at issue because it is a given! What people mean when they speak of things being "generic" is that they do not do anything to really stand out from the other (in this case games.) items that belong to the group in question.

I'm going to expand on intplee's list.

The original Halo was a groundbreaking game, it was up there among the best FPS's ever created. A lot of people hate it because its on a console, those people are idiots. Halo 2/3 followed the formula with minor improvements. Many things halo did had been done before, but no game had integrated them so well.

A lot of times, even Halo fans have problems identifiying what makes the games so great. It's actually many little things. This is what makes them so brilliant IMHO, they're subtle. You're just enjoying it without knowing, that is great design.

So what made HALO CE so great?

1) The fight triad. You can use guns, grenades or melee, all immediately accesible -each type of attack mapped to a button-. This leads to very dynamic battles. A sort of rock-paper-scissors situation.

2) The two weapon limitation. It's been pointed out, as an element of strategy

3) The control scheme. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but I think they *created* the standard control scheme for FPS's on consoles.

4) The vehicles. Seamlessly integrated into the game. A variety of distint vehicles are available you you to choose.

5) The control scheme for vehicles. Where you control the camera, not the vehicle and the vehicle follows. Sounds weird until you try it.Its actually brilliant

6) The rechargeable shields. Its been pointed out

7) No bosses. Did you notice that Halo has no bosses? -Mr Yahtzee didn't get this one-. Allow for faster pacing.

8) Cortana. She's actually a plot device. A way of moving the story forward without pausing for cutscenes. Again, for pacing. She's not a sidekick running around near you getting killed, just brilliant.

9) The storyline is pretty good. Specially on the first one.

10) The AI. Its quite convincing, both in allies and foes. Did you notice how much your allies make comments on what's happening? Helps make the whole thing more believable. Did you see the grunts running away when their elite leader was killed?

11) The levels. All three games have fantastic levels. Do I need to mention the Silent Cartographer? The first level of Halo 3 is just amazing, you can see they spent more time on that level than on the others. However, I must also concede that they have a couple of pretty sucky levels as well -library anyone? There is also something about their level design that is confusing - sometimes I found myself backtracking without knowing it, this happened in all 3 games.

12) The music. Distinct, unique. Helps build the atmosphere. You won't be confusing Halo's music with anything else.

That's just a list of thing's I've noticed. I'm sure there are more little things that I din't notice, but that enhanced the experience anyway

In the end, its an amazing balancing act.

imagremlin:
3) The control scheme. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong on this one, but I think they *created* the standard control scheme for FPS's on consoles.

You are wrong. TimeSplitters and Red Faction both had the control scheme first, and I believe even one of the Medal of Honor games on the original PSX used it as well. There may have been another few PSX games that used it as well.

shadow skill:
You really should learn how to use the english language first before you call someone dense. In this context the fact that fps' have simillar characteristics because they belong to the same genre is not at issue because it is a given! What people mean when they speak of things being "generic" is that they do not do anything to really stand out from the other (in this case games.) items that belong to the group in question.

I can only deduce from analysing available evidence that when people call Halo "generic" they are referring to the 'move around in first-person view shooting things' format, unless you can offer some other explanation as to what makes it so much more generic than the other four hundred shooters released in the past five years.
Like Halo or hate Halo, that doesn't bother me one bit. But if someone is going to spout off a deliberately contrary opinion about anything in an open forum, I want to see some evidence to back those claims up.
So far, no one has convincingly explained to me why Halo is bad. They complain about the short campaign length but forgive other games for it. They complain about a weak story, but if you name an FPS that has a better one I can name two that don't.
Halo 3 is consistently number 1 in the most played Xbox Live list and has been every week since its release, making it the first game to dethrone Gears of War which was the first game to take the number one spot away from Halo 2. The typical defence against this argument is to call Halo 3 players 'MS drones' or 'Bungie whores', but give the gaming community some credit. We don't play bad games, not with this kind of passion, and at the end of the day you just might have to accept that beyond your own opinions and personal bias, there is a good game that hundreds of thousands of people are genuinely enjoying every day.

Is it overhyped? Good god, yes. Does that automatically equal a poor or generic game? You tell me, boss.

I enjoyed the hype. Of course, nobody should have expected anything to live up to that kind of hype, ever. It was, however, very good and absurd fun, like a celebration of the entire videogame industry, and recognition of how many people enjoy the fruit of its labours.

To repeat myself:

shadow skill:
Since someone already mentioned Goldeneye I won't repeat what he said save to say that the removal of health packs was and is a good thing in the long run because they don't really make sense. I hope that Far Cry 2 manages to strike a nice balance though with their bullet removal system, now on to Halo. Other than what others have mentioned with respect to Goldeneye and how Halo does not do anything that Goldeneye has not done, or at least what it has done for console shooters and surpassed it, my main problems are:

• The fact that some of the enemies are cute like bunnies.... Seriously I can't fathom why there are cute enemies in Halo games. Imagine a Doom game where you had to kill cuddly woodland creatures with guns that actually ran away from you on sight! It wouldn't make sense in the context of the game and it does not make sense for those short covenant to behave in this manner.
• Why are players punched in the face if they happen to play the console versions of these games when it comes time to adjust the controls? (Not a problem unique to Halo but if people want to claim that this or any other game is a great game it better allow the user to create his or her own layout of buttons if the game bothers to let you change sticks in the first place, rather than insult player intelligence by not doing so but allowing other options that beg for this kind of thing.) I don't understand how the PC port of Halo 1 (and presumeably Halo 2 which I have not played.) has what seemingly all pc games have, full keyboard customization yet Halo 3 does not respect the player enough to let them decide for themselves where the buttons are mapped to. Yet I can name games that came out after Goldeneye and around the time of Halo 1 that did allow for this sort of thing.
• How is Halo supposed to be so great if the online ui is so goddamn retarded in comparison to the PC version of Halo 1 by Halo 2 and 3? Once again Bungie decided to insult the intelligence of console players by sticking them with a retarded match selection system that people only think is good because they don't know better. I literally stopped playing Halo 3 when I saw how the match selection system worked coming from the PC version of Halo 1 (Not to mention games like Resistance, GRAW, and Socom.) that abomination was simply unacceptable.
• I would also love to understand what the point of the headcra- errrr Flood was? Bungie failed to make the Covenant truly menacing, and failed miserably to touch on the religious aspect of things other than to make the Covenant leader an insane high priest, so they decided to throw in the Gravemind and Flood to make up for this, which is just plain sad in the grand scheme of things since all of these things could have worked if they had actually put forward some effort.

I have yet to see someone come up with a reason why it is a good game that did not devolve into "Millions of people are playing it." argument much like your post is.

They complain about a weak story, but if you name an FPS that has a better one I can name two that don't.

How does this make it unfair to call Halo 3 Generic? The statement implies that there are in fact shooters that do not have plots that are as weak as Halo's which would make said games less generic in this respect by definition. Therefore it would mean that stating that Halo 3 is generic is completely valid no matter how many other games are since there is at least one game that is not in fact generic.

1. I don't see why the grunts being afraid of the Master Chief is quite the affront that you feel it is. From the first moment they see him (in terms of the story) he wades through their rank and file leaving a trail of corpses. The grunts are the weakest of the weak, the front line which can be fearsome in large numbers but the Chief is a new foe that is singlehandedly decimating their forces. Would it make more sense to you that they continuously throw themselves at him, knowing they're going to die?
We see them running away, even hiding behind bigger, badder enemies and taking potshots at you before running back behind cover. This makes sense to me in the context of things. Sorry you apparently don't feel the same way.

2. I'm actually racking my brains trying to figure out what was so mind bogglingly confusing about the Halo button layout on the Xbox that had you begging for a way to change it up. Would this have been a nice feature to have? Maybe, for the small percentage of people who wanted it, I'll acknowledge that. But frankly, this is the least consequential gameplay issue I've ever seen addressed.

3. To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to. You (presumably) like games where you choose your map, tweak a few settings, and let people join your game. And this is fine. You can do this with your friendslist in Halo 3 incidentally.
The general Halo 3 matchmaking is pretty much random - you choose a non-specific gametype and get thrown into a match at random, sometimes with party members/friends if you're playing socially or in team games. I'm not ignorant of the alternatives, friend. I prefer Halo 3 matchmaking. I decided I was sick of your preferred method when I logged into Rainbow Six: Vegas and every available Terrorist Hunt game was being held on LVU campus. Halo 3 is a faster paced game, a big part of it is being able to think on your feet and make snap decisions that decide whether you score or the enemy does (saying "live or die" is far too dramatic). So you get thrown into a game of Oddball on Epitaph and you have to adapt. The next game is Slayer on Highground and you adapt again. Even with the same people on the same map there is no constant set of tactics that will always serve you well, especially with Bungie offering alternatives like the Team Hardcore playlist which eliminates abuse of certain weapons (most notably shotgun camping the tunnels on the Snowbound map).

4. So you're annoyed about the striking similary between the behaviour of the flood and the behaviour of headcrabs from Half-life. Let's get past that for a moment and actually look at what you're saying: Bungie were unsatisfied with the Covenant as an enemy for the Master Chief, so instead of making them better, they added an extra enemy, packed the game with badly thought out pseudo-religious commentary, and turned everything into a sci-fi clusterfuck.
Well while we're deliberately missing the point of things by poorly informing ourselves, I'd like to take this opportunity to call Half-Life 2 a game about a man who is kidnapped by underground terrorists hellbent on upsetting the social order instated by the peaceloving Combine forces and spends the next few days trying desperately to escape them as they lure him to a junkyard to be the human plaything of a violent robot then send him to a decrepit ghost town once he no logner amuses them.
An elementary assessment of the actual story of either game would make us both look a lot less ignorant, but who has time for that?

Lastly, this brings us back to my original point. You can't call anything generic without establishing what generic is. Either no shooter can be called generic because there are significant differences from game to game that prevent any kind of mass pigeonholing, or we call them all generic because they consist of the same basic elements. Generic does not mean average. It doesn't even mean mediocre. It means it contains no unique characteristics - this is an inaccurate assessment of Halo.

Lets look at a few things objectively, shall we?
Plot: Halo CE's plot was good. Halo 2's plot was okay (but with the religious context of leading a civilization onto mass suicide due to beliefs etc). Halo 3's plot was okay but had an element of epicness to it. Furthermore you cannot judge Halo 3 storyline as being bland (aliens are invading) while ignoring the 1st 2 games. The books are not necessary to get the plot, but provide a good backstory and flesh out some of the characters and background events.
Hype: Hype is bad. But you can't blame a game for being hyped, you can only blame a game for not living up to hype. Furthermore, another word for hype is marketing. Something that all gaming developers want done.
Popularity: Halo CE attracted fans with it's innovative new features. Halo 2 brought on those fans, plus new fans who found the multiplayer easy to use, polished, balanced and FUN. Remember that thing? Halo 3 carried over those fans plus new ones who still enjoy the multiplayer.
High score: Personally i think Halo 3 was rated too highly, being a 9 at most but I hate unjustified critisms.
The Flood: The flood were an excellent plot device in the first game, where they were accidentaly released by the covenant suddenly shifting the entire battle on Halo in an entirely different direction.
In conclusion, Halo 3 is not the best game ever, it is not overly brilliant in it's story or innovativeness (Halo CE doesn't count here). What it is, is polished, balanced and fun for millions of people. There are some shooters that are certainly better than it's singleplayer, but virtually none better than its multiplayer, a few are on par.

Cheeze_Pavilion:

shadow skill:

I have yet to see someone come up with a reason why it is a good game that did not devolve into "Millions of people are playing it." argument much like your post is.

Mine didn't :-D

Welcome back cheezey. :)

Halo CE implemented the standard control scheme. Left analog stick for movement, right to move the camera. It also implemented recharging shields. Almost every FPS complies with those two standards.

Halo 2 was one of the first major X-Box live capable games. It's matchmaking system has been copied in many games since then. It allowed and opened the door to competitive online play and is the main reason MLG has become so popular. MLG Halo 2 matches have been aired live on g4.

Halo 3 looks to perfect the ideas from the other Halos and add in items such as the forge and saved films, that will probable become industry standards.

Anyways Halo 2 was my first taste of online play. I loved the competitiveness, emphasis in skills such as the ability to shoot someone i the head, and matchmaking system. Playing a game with rooms who's host is always adding in stupid rules and making sure his team wins are sub par to me. As a result while games like GoW were coming out I stuck with Halo 2. Other games with more that 8 people on a team irritate my because its impossible to use any teamwork. Game without a ranking system drive me must because I'm almost always playing people who asses I can cook.

Halo 2 and then Halo 3 offered the best online multiplayer for someone very competitive such as my self. Lately other games have been coming close and I think a few have past it in areas but Halo 3's multiplayer is more solid than any other game I've come across in both PC and X-Box.

Though they really should have added a cover system like GoW, R6 Vegas, or GRAW 2. Can't get everything I suppose.

All three halo's were over hyped with it getting worse each time. However, the first two set industry standards and the third may do the same but in much smaller ways.