just cause its called halo 3 doesnt mean that its the best game of the three, i think thats a close tie between the first and second, also because halo 3 was the shortest game of the three, you think that they would come up with something else to make the game go on longer, i was kinda disappointed that it was soo short, what like 9 chapters, i love the game in all but i felt that the campaign was kinda lacking
if not for all the hype and whatnot, i probably would give it a 7 or 8.. with all the hype I give it a 5 or 6.
In all seriousness, some neat gameplay aspects they've added. But nothing groundbreaking, or outlandishly awesome. Especially in the single player, the single player was wanting on so many levels. There was very little "omg that was freakin epic" bits about it.
Don't get me wrong, it's a really good game, but nothing to make it stand out from the other two, or just about any good shooter for that matter.
Same goes for the graphics. They were really really good. But definitely not the most fantastic graphics on the 360 to date. (though the environments were a metric ton better than the other games)
I guess i'm just nitpicky cause i work in this retarded industry...
simply because of the lacking campaign 5 - 7 hours is way too short
as for Multi it gets a 10/10 they have crammed so much into the multiplayer aspect of the game it makes it totally awesome
I personally think that Bungie made the multi first and got to involved playing it that they cut corners on the campaign lol
That actually wouldn't surprise me one bit. if you look at it from their perspective, like 80% of the community only buy it to "pwn" at multiplayer. so why not worry about that first and jam the singleplayer stuff in the back of the closet till it's needed