The Escapist Review Of Halo 3

humanji

By popular demand, Yahtzee has been forced to review Halo 3:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/2304-Zero-Punctuation-Halo-3

Jim

Halo is probably the only game I judge without ever having played it. Well, I played the first game without ever hearing of it, finished it and thought it was average. Looked it up on the net and was bombarded with "ZOMG BST GAME EVA" to such a degree that my objectivity is forever tainted.

humanji

I was reading some of the user reviews of it on Gamespot, and it's hilarious. Half the reviews came in before the game actually came out and there's a large seciotn of people giving it 1 out of 10 (1 being the lowest. God knows why they can't give 0!), and they go on about how rubbish it is. But if you check their profile, all the other games they've reviews are PS3 games, which have all got mysterious 10 out of 10's

0ubliette

pretty funny review, but i disagree with the entire thing
Anybody who says halo 3 is 'average', obviously never made it to level 7. The single best designed level ive played in a FPS since HL2. Bordering on being absolute perfection.

tman

Jimeatsmenu wrote:

Halo is probably the only game I judge without ever having played it. Well, I played the first game without ever hearing of it, finished it and thought it was average. Looked it up on the net and was bombarded with "ZOMG BST GAME EVA" to such a degree that my objectivity is forever tainted.

I thought the same about the first Halo, just couldn't understand why people spoke so passionatly about such an average game...
I bought into the Halo3 hype and ended up getting a copy (scratched collector's edition, natch), and have to say it almost does live up to all this hype. A damn fine game imo, but not quite worth the 10/10 scores that it has been getting across the board. more of a 9/10 (and a generous 9 at that)

0ubliette wrote:

pretty funny review, but i disagree with the entire thing
Anybody who says halo 3 is 'average', obviously never made it to level 7. The single best designed level ive played in a FPS since HL2. Bordering on being absolute perfection.

Then they follow it up with level 8, one of the worst designed levels in FPS history:p

Kiith

Halo was a very good console FPS in a world of utterly **** console FPS games. Compared to many pc FPS's, it falls short. Halo 2 (playing it at the moment) is enjoyable, but pretty standard. I'm hoping Halo 3 lives up to the hype when i start it at the weekend.

Helix

0ubliette wrote:

pretty funny review, but i disagree with the entire thing
Anybody who says halo 3 is 'average', obviously never made it to level 7. The single best designed level ive played in a FPS since HL2. Bordering on being absolute perfection.

which level is 7 again?

the last level with the driving is bloody awful

as was the irritating flood level

Kiith

Careful with those spoilers now...

tman

Helix wrote:

which level is 7 again?

the one with the 2 big enemy spider crab thingys (the proper name has slipped my mind:p) that you take down with a warthog. I really liked the driving bit of the last level, it appealed to my inner child. there's nothing like ramping over stuff when everything is blowing up around you...

Gizzle

0ubliette wrote:

pretty funny review, but i disagree with the entire thing
Anybody who says halo 3 is 'average', obviously never made it to level 7. The single best designed level ive played in a FPS since HL2. Bordering on being absolute perfection.

Ahhh, gaming goodness.

Nothing beats leaping from a Scarab from 5 storeys up just as it explodes. You lose 90% of your health, but it's damn worth it! And then to do it AGAIN?! Joys!

mcgovern

There is no point in reviewing Halo 3 if you dont review the multiplayer part.
Its not as if it was a suprise that mp is where the time was spent

Helix

tman wrote:

the one with the 2 big enemy spider crab thingys (the proper name has slipped my mind:p) that you take down with a warthog. I really liked the driving bit of the last level, it appealed to my inner child. there's nothing like ramping over stuff when everything is blowing up around you...

oooooooh yeah i quite enjoyed that level actually, youre right thats one of the nicest levels ive ever played in a game alrite

the last one is pants tho

MooseJam

is it just me or does he speak very fast

super_furry

mcgovern wrote:

There is no point in reviewing Halo 3 if you dont review the multiplayer part.
Its not as if it was a suprise that mp is where the time was spent

Exactly. If he finished the single player campaign, he barely ever scratched the surface of the game. It would be like reviewing Unreal Tournament based as a few bot matches.

Aside from that, he goes on to say Bioshock what Halo should aspire to be, a game which he ripped the living **** out of a few weeks back.

TheAlmightyArse

super_furry wrote:

Aside from that, he goes on to say Bioshock what Halo should aspire to be, a game which he ripped the living **** out of a few weeks back.

Er, actually he loved it. I think his exact words were "game of the year". Besides, he didn't say that Halo should aspire to be Bioshock, rather he used Bioshock as an example of a game that (regardless of all its faults) isn't entirely bland, as opposed to Halo, which is.

Vegeta

As someone who had to force myself to finish Halo and couldn't be arsed finishing Halo 2 I have to say Halo 3 is just better all round.

I personally think its all down to the level design. Halo and Halo 2 suffered badly here, some very very boring tripe in them. All the levels I have played so far in Halo 3 have been great fun.

Seriously I thought Halo and Halo 2 were the most overhyped games in history, Halo 3 is definitely worth playing through.

Retr0gamer

I do have to agree with him about all the perfect scores Halo 3 is getting. It's a good game but it really doesn't do anything new and apart from the big name attached to it, the hype and marketing there are far better games out there and games just as good that didn't get a 10/10 score from the same publications. Those perfect scores I feel should be reserved to games that either do something totally new and inventive that will redefine gaming for years to come (mario 64, Ocarina of Time) or totally perfect the genre that they are in (Half-life, Resident Evil 4). I can think of dozens of FPS games just as good if not better than Halo in both multiplayer and single player. It's a good case of the publications getting caught up in the hype and in Edges case, being arrogant and not admitting they were wrong with scores (6/10 for gunstar heroes, peole have been shot for lesser crimes).

steviec

mcgovern wrote:

There is no point in reviewing Halo 3 if you dont review the multiplayer part.
Its not as if it was a suprise that mp is where the time was spent

That's the thing. It was only something like 10% of all Halo and Halo 2 owners that ever played online, and I've read that MS estimate that 40% of Halo 3 owners will play online. Thats an awful lot of buyers not being served by reviews which make out that the game is perfect in every way.

Now I don't want to judge a game I haven't played too harshly, but I've played Halo 1 and 2 and the Halo 3 beta and nothing has made me want to play Halo 3 or believe it could possibly live up to all the praise it gets. Especially when you read some of the deeper reviews that actually hold off on the praise for a moment to mention the terrible AI, poor checkpoint system, difficulty spikes etc.

johnny_ultimate

This guy is offically my new favourite reviewer. I think he is hilariously over-critical, in a good sort of way - all these ten/ten scores being handed to Halo 3 are the definition of hyperbole and band-wagon jumping, and pretty much sum up the problem with game journalism these days (seems like Yathzee and Gamecentral are the only ones I can trust for an honest review these days - picked up Edge today and even they gave Halo an over-enthusiastic score).

But I am with some others - never got the hype of Halo 1 or 2 (and have played and finished both) but having given into the hype and puchased a copy (damn evert second bus assualting me with those Halo 3 posters) 3 really is very good, if far from perfect. It is certainly not the best game Ive played this year, but could be the most fun. If BioShock is an art house film, then Halo 3 is something like (chooses metaphor carefully...) an excellent Hollywood blockbuster - stupid, but enjoyable as hell. There is certainly a place of both.

Nailz

I agree with everything Johnny & the reviewer said...

tman

Fantastic review as usual btw:p

Dont be at yourself

I've not played Halo 3, but he sums up the previous two pretty well!

I love Zero Punctuation

Ivan

Its a sad state of affairs when I get more entertainment out of the review than I expect to get out of the game...

Jip

Ivan wrote:

Its a sad state of affairs when I get more entertainment out of the review than I expect to get out of the game...

To be fair to Halo 3, the campaign is much more entertaining than the previous 2. Finished the first and just got bored with the second so never bothered trying to complete it. The 3rd is great fun and didn't find any major difficulty spikes on Heroic. Sure, there was some tough parts but I never got to the stage where I got sick of it and just gave up for a while, something I've done on the previous instalment at normal level.

vasch_ro

to be fair its very hard for anyone to be completely objective, in the one of the early posts its mentioned that that some guy gave all of the PS3 games 10 and Halo3 1 etc etc , some people have more of a retro bias when it comes to their games, but when you buy Halo, its like buying a tin of Ronseal.
You know what your getting , its a as simple as that ! I played the game through and have to say I have enjoyed it through and through, amd even though I am not a major online gamer , i have been enjoying the online sessions I have had. For my two cents its well worth the 49.99 that tesco charged and is definately above average and good fun. Particularly the last escape !
I think eurogamer more or less some up what i am trying to say
"Let's cut the crap. Cut the platform advocacy, cut the ranting of Internet storm-troopers on behalf of multinational corporations who don't care if they live or die. Cut the agonised wailing and gnashing of teeth over whether something is "game of the year" or just "really good".

Let's cut the crap, and talk about Halo 3, the videogame - not Halo 3, the monumental "event"

I think a lot of people and reviewers have been sucked into the event and then cannot help be disappointed, its like seeing a heavily edited movie trailer a year in advance of release , but the movie never lives up to hype, (kinda like the Irish rugby team !!!:rolleyes: Its good just not as good as the hype!

Necronomicon

I loved the game initially but I thought it went downhill towards the end, the last few levels were really irritating IMO - the fun went out of it. Fighting the flood is so bloody tedious. Also, Cortana appearing every 20 seconds in one of the last levels drove me mad. I think it's been mentioned elsewhere in the thread as well, but there's far too much tracking back in levels.

The review is hilarious though

mcgovern

steviec wrote:

That's the thing. It was only something like 10% of all Halo and Halo 2 owners that ever played online, and I've read that MS estimate that 40% of Halo 3 owners will play online. Thats an awful lot of buyers not being served by reviews which make out that the game is perfect in every way.

Now I don't want to judge a game I haven't played too harshly, but I've played Halo 1 and 2 and the Halo 3 beta and nothing has made me want to play Halo 3 or believe it could possibly live up to all the praise it gets. Especially when you read some of the deeper reviews that actually hold off on the praise for a moment to mention the terrible AI, poor checkpoint system, difficulty spikes etc.

I'm far from a Halo fanboy (only playing it to pass the time until CoD4 is out) but it is good. Yes its not perfect (despite 10/10 reviews, none of them said it was perfect though they should have given it a score to reflect that), but it more than worth the money, and is one of the best FPS out there for a console (haven't played on the PC apart from HL2 and Doom 3 in the last few years).
Despite people claiming it doesn't do anything new, it does. Forge and video+ screenshot uploads are new for consoles and making a big impact.
It also has a wealth of options that I've never seen in any other FPS. There are 112k+ playing it right now, over 750k in the last 24 hrs. You don't get those kind of numbers by being bad.
Most of the people who are claiming its crap etc have never played the game, so who does that make worse, reviewers who played it and gave it an over-zealous score, or reviewers who are saying its crap without ever experiencing it?

TheAlmightyArse

mcgovern wrote:

Despite people claiming it doesn't do anything new, it does. Forge and video+ screenshot uploads are new for consoles and making a big impact.
It also has a wealth of options that I've never seen in any other FPS. There are 112k+ playing it right now, over 750k in the last 24 hrs. You don't get those kind of numbers by being bad.

They're online features. What about the people playing offline? They're the majority (Microsoft estimate that only 40% of Halo 3 players will go online, which is a fairly generous estimation considering Halo 2's paltry percentage).

mcgovern wrote:

Most of the people who are claiming its crap etc have never played the game... reviewers who are saying its crap without ever experiencing it?

Is there any evidence of this actually being the case, or are you just making stuff up? From Yahtzee's review:

"Halo 3 is by no means bad. What it is is average, boilerplate, run of the mill. A competent shooter, its only remarkable feature being the degree to which its stuck up it's own arse."

To me, that sounds more like a concise, fair assessment from someone speaking with experience, rather than an ignorant rant.

humanji

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

To me, that sounds more like a concise, fair assessment from someone speaking with experience, rather than an ignorant rant.

Plus, it's funny!

ntlbell

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

"Halo 3 is by no means bad. What it is is average, boilerplate, run of the mill. A competent shooter, its only remarkable feature being the degree to which its stuck up it's own arse."

To me, that sounds more like a concise, fair assessment from someone speaking with experience, rather than an ignorant rant.

Also not a big Halo fan, I'd go so far to call 1 and 2 pretty dull and boring from an offline POV.

But he didn't play 1 or 2 and only played parts of 3? or am I wrong?

Retr0gamer

mcgovern wrote:

There are 112k+ playing it right now, over 750k in the last 24 hrs. You don't get those kind of numbers by being bad.

Manhunter and Enter the Matrix sold loads and were played by millions. Both were purified sh*t.

As for Forge, we were promised a level editor and all we got was a way of moving guns and vehicles around exsting levels. Dreadful stuff. There was a complete level editor and creator (and a bloody excellent one at that superior in every way to forge) included with Farcry Instincts on the old xbox. No excuses there and about as new and original as caramel bars the lidl mars bar rip off only nowhere near as tasty.

mcgovern

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

They're online features. What about the people playing offline? They're the majority (Microsoft estimate that only 40% of Halo 3 players will go online, which is a fairly generous estimation considering Halo 2's paltry percentage).



Is there any evidence of this actually being the case, or are you just making stuff up? From Yahtzee's review:

"Halo 3 is by no means bad. What it is is average, boilerplate, run of the mill. A competent shooter, its only remarkable feature being the degree to which its stuck up it's own arse."

To me, that sounds more like a concise, fair assessment from someone speaking with experience, rather than an ignorant rant.

Read this thread for plenty of examples of people saying "Halo 3 is crap, haven't played it but its Halo so it must be". Not exactly hard to find.
And not playing the Multiplayer is almost as bad. So what if not everyone uses it? The fact is, its there, and its done very well and thus deserves praise.
And the 40% is unlikely to be a generous estimate, within 12hrs of launch over 1million people had logged on

How many people here who think its average or worse
a) have the game
and
b) love FPSs
?
I bet the number is very small.

P.S. Regarding the map editor for Far Cry, it totally ruined the MP for me. Nothing worse than joining a user made map, only for you to be stuck in an area with no weapons while the map creater sits on top of a unreachable platform with a sniper rifle and stacks of ammo.

TheAlmightyArse

ntlbell wrote:

But he didn't play 1 or 2 and only played parts of 3? or am I wrong?

He says Halo 3 is all the Halo he's played, which is enough to review Halo 3.

mcgovern wrote:

Read this thread for plenty of examples of people saying "Halo 3 is crap, haven't played it but its Halo so it must be". Not exactly hard to find.

You said that most critical reviews of Halo 3 were from people who hadn't even played it. A few flimsy posts in this thread from obviously bitter people isn't demonstrative of this.

mcgovern wrote:

And not playing the Multiplayer is almost as bad. So what if not everyone uses it? The fact is, its there, and its done very well and thus deserves praise.

Conversely, if someone finds the single player campaign lacking, shouldn't they say? And why should they tack on praise for an online mode they have no interest in, regardless of how well implemented it is?

mcgovern wrote:

And the 40% is unlikely to be a generous estimate, within 12hrs of launch over 1million people had logged on

Of course it's likely to be generous; it's not like Microsoft are unbiased here. Regardless, 40% is still a minority. It leaves online play meaningless to 60% of players.

mcgovern

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

You said that most critical reviews of Halo 3 were from people who hadn't even played it. A few flimsy posts in this thread from obviously bitter people isn't demonstrative of this.

I've not seen any critical comments apart from forums like this one, so it is very demonstrative.

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

Conversely, if someone finds the single player campaign lacking, shouldn't they say? And why should they tack on praise for an online mode they have no interest in, regardless of how well implemented it is?

There is a diffence between stating your opinion and writing a review. A review should be about all aspects, not just the parts you do or don't like. In other words a real review can say "This gets 8/10 instead of 9/10 because I found the single player lacking" but a real review should not say "I'm giving this 5/10 because I only bothered to review 1 piece of it, and the one that was always going to be least groundbreaking at that".

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

Of course it's likely to be generous; it's not like Microsoft are unbiased here. Regardless, 40% is still a minority. It leaves online play meaningless to 60% of players.

The only esimate for number of units sold I could find was 2.8million for the first week.
More than 1.4million played it online in that period, or 50%.
There is also the fact that it is not meaningless, since the multiplayer functions are available in local play and system link etc.
A lot of people who don't have broadband will still play Halo 3 multiplayer with friends on the one Xbox for instance. I had 3 friends over on Friday night and we had a great time playing Halo 3 and FIFA 08 without ever logging into Xbox Live.

humanji

mcgovern wrote:

There is a diffence between stating your opinion and writing a review. A review should be about all aspects, not just the parts you do or don't like. In other words a real review can say "This gets 8/10 instead of 9/10 because I found the single player lacking" but a real review should not say "I'm giving this 5/10 because I only bothered to review 1 piece of it, and the one that was always going to be least groundbreaking at that".

Conversly, should a game get a high review because the reviewer only enjoyed one part of it and was't too bothered by the other part? Many of the people who are big Halo fans are fans of the MP side of it. If this is good and the SP is just a bog standard FPS game, then why should it get such huge praise when only one part of it is anything special?

Dcully

Ive always said Halo is THE most overated fps series on any format.
Its not a bad game as has been said,its only average.
While i personally havent played Halo 2 or 3 ive heard nothing good about either except from those who do not own or play pc fps titles.
I used to have Halo for xbox and PC and thoroughly enjoyed multiplayer on both ,for obvious reasons the pc versions was a lot better but thats for another day.

To xbox owners Halo may seem all conquering but to seasoned pc gamers they have seen it all before hence why very few pc gamers ooh and aah at Halo.

Jack Sheehan

Well I dont think anyone thinks that halo 3 is inherently 'BAD' but its not worthy of the same score as hl2 or Super Mario Bros. It is as he said 'average, boilerplate, run of the mill....it's only defining feature being the degree to which it's stuck up it's own arse'.

It's multiplayer is fun but certainly not TEH BEST EVA as everyone i know seems to be calling it. You cannot give 10/10 to a game simply because it's multiplayer is so good. If It has a short, mildly good single player it is not worthy of 10, or indeed 9.

also: 'I left my heart to a starship trooper....'

ntlbell

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

He says Halo 3 is all the Halo he's played, which is enough to review Halo 3.

I was under the impression he didn't play all of halo 3 nor did he play the mp side of it if it is this case, that is not enough to review it

ntlbell

Dcully wrote:

To xbox owners Halo may seem all conquering but to seasoned pc gamers they have seen it all before hence why very few pc gamers ooh and aah at Halo.

Yes because it's impossible for a xbox owner who posts on boards to possibly have a pc and have played PC games.

This PC snobbery is getting a tad dull.

motherboard,RAM,PROC,GPU,HDD an xbox IS a pc ffs!

Dcully

Yes because it's impossible for a xbox owner who posts on boards to possibly have a pc and have played PC games

I can post on boards on my mobile,i just cant play pc fps titles on it

This PC snobbery is getting a tad dull.

motherboard,RAM,PROC,GPU,HDD an xbox IS a pc ffs!

Not Pc snobbery at all,i cant play wii tennis on my pc but can on the wii.
I suppose thats called Wii snobbery ?

TheAlmightyArse

mcgovern wrote:

There is a diffence between stating your opinion and writing a review. A review should be about all aspects, not just the parts you do or don't like. In other words a real review can say "This gets 8/10 instead of 9/10 because I found the single player lacking" but a real review should not say "I'm giving this 5/10 because I only bothered to review 1 piece of it, and the one that was always going to be least groundbreaking at that".

Reviews are entirely about opinion. A good reviewer should give their informed opinion, based on their time with the game and in the context of the wider genre, carefully explained and entertainingly written. It should be what they think, because they can't possibly know what you'll think.

Otherwise every bad review would end in "... but then, maybe you'll love it. 7/10"

mcgovern

TheAlmightyArse wrote:

Reviews are entirely about opinion. A good reviewer should give their informed opinion, based on their time with the game and in the context of the wider genre, carefully explained and entertainingly written. It should be what they think, because they can't possibly know what you'll think.

Otherwise every bad review would end in "... but then, maybe you'll love it. 7/10"

A real review contains a combination of opinions and facts. Not just a opinion about 1 facet of the item being reviewed. It does not need to be entertainingly written, if I'm looking to buy a new toothbrush and I want to know whats best one on the market, I don't care that someone wrote a witty review, I'd rather one that short and to the point. An entertaining review makes it more readable, but it doesn't add to the creditablity of the review.
And using your definition, the Escapist's Review can't be called a review since it a) doesn't take into consideration the context of Halo 3 in console FPSs and b) is not carefully explained.

Halo 3 is not the best game ever, CoD4 for instance will most likely be better, but it has done things never done on a console before, and done them well. It is enjoyable to play and a few years from now when people have forgotten Bioshock and STALKER etc, people will still be playing it, other console games will still by copying it and most likely people who have never played will still be belittling it.

Kiith

mcgovern wrote:

It is enjoyable to play and a few years from now when people have forgotten Bioshock and STALKER etc, people will still be playing it, other console games will still by copying it and most likely people who have never played will still be belittling it.

That says a lot more about the people playing the games, then it does about the games themselves.

ntlbell

Dcully wrote:

I can post on boards on my mobile,i just cant play pc fps titles on it



Not Pc snobbery at all,i cant play wii tennis on my pc but can on the wii.
I suppose thats called Wii snobbery ?

try dictionary.com for the word snob, then re-read your posts and re-read mine and try and concentrate you will work out the points eventually your a pc gamer you can do this!

mcgovern

Kiith wrote:

That says a lot more about the people playing the games, then it does about the games themselves.

Does it? Why would you go back and play Bioshock in a years time? To hear the same story again?

humanji

ntlbell wrote:

I was under the impression he didn't play all of halo 3 nor did he play the mp side of it if it is this case, that is not enough to review it

mcgovern wrote:

And using your definition, the Escapist's Review can't be called a review since it a) doesn't take into consideration the context of Halo 3 in console FPSs and b) is not carefully explained.

The Escapist reviews are done for their entertainment value. Even though Yahtzee points out major problems with all the games he reviews and usually focuses on them, he glosses over the main points of the games for the simple reason they're not as much fun to take the piss out of. And as such, you can't judge it the same as proper reviews. Sure, if I listened to his Bioshock review, I'd of never bought Bioshock and just reinstalled System Shock 2 instead (which reminds me, I've to reinstall System Shock 2 ).

mcgovern wrote:

It is enjoyable to play and a few years from now when people have forgotten Bioshock and STALKER etc, people will still be playing it, other console games will still by copying it and most likely people who have never played will still be belittling it.

And I'd disagree with this for the simple reason that the next three Halo games are in the works

But you have a good point about people saying it's crap without playing it. But you also had people saying it was the greatest game ever made before it was released. And you get people saying it's the best thing ever when only playing the MP side. And you get people saying it's crap by only playing the SP side. The problem is that it seems few people are interested in reviewing it as a whole.

ntlbell wrote:

Yes because it's impossible for a xbox owner who posts on boards to possibly have a pc and have played PC games.

This PC snobbery is getting a tad dull.

As is console fanboy elitism. Dcully had a good point. When Halo came out on the xBox, PC gamers had the likes of Half-life for about 4 years before, and I think Deus Ex came out in the same year (I'll look it up). So, although Halo was incredible for console gamers, to someone who was used to PC games, it offered very little.

Dcully

LOL ntlbell do you take everything in life so seriously?

Get some form of humour will ya :rolleyes:

ntlbell

humanji wrote:

As is console fanboy elitism. Dcully had a good point. When Halo came out on the xBox, PC gamers had the likes of Half-life for about 4 years before, and I think Deus Ex came out in the same year (I'll look it up). So, although Halo was incredible for console gamers, to someone who was used to PC games, it offered very little.

I hope you're not referring to me as a fanboy, lets get a few things straight.

I do most of my gaming on the PC but I have also owned every console since the 2600bar the ps3.

Add to the fact *I* don't even like halo!

My point is a lot of console owners are also PC gamers and MOST of us are not stupid enough to think halo is the be all and end all of the FPS genere.

Jack Sheehan

mcgovern wrote:

Does it? Why would you go back and play Bioshock in a years time? To hear the same story again?

Er..I think yes is the simple answer to that. Why not? Do you think Bioshock has limited replay value, even with the tremendous (nice word) amount of options as regards big daddy fights etc.

Don't get me wrong I'm not saying people won't play Halo3 aswell but people still play SS2 don't they?



At least, I do...

humanji

ntlbell wrote:

I hope you're not referring to me as a fanboy, lets get a few things straight.

I do most of my gaming on the PC but I have also owned every console since the 2600bar the ps3.

Add to the fact *I* don't even like halo!

My point is a lot of console owners are also PC gamers and MOST of us are not stupid enough to think halo is the be all and end all of the FPS genere.

It was in reference to your implying DScully was a PC snob. It's randomly making assumptions and tagging people because of it.

Kiith

humanji wrote:

(which reminds me, I've to reinstall System Shock 2 )

Hang on a minute...you deleted System Shock 2? Blasphemy!! :mad: