Not exactly a fitting finale for one of the greatest video game trilogies in history, but stands well on its own.
The original Halo game was true space opera. There were so many moments of marvel--the first time I saw the ring rise up the horizon, way above, and back down around the other side, I had nothing to say except "whoa." It was one of those moments that validates gaming as an art-form and stands as one of the most prolific entries into the Sci-Fi shooter genre, impressing on us an awesome sense of scale, and as a consequence, a story that rises to a fever pitch with such marvelous pacing and execution that it was over just a little too soon.
Halo 2 was a solid entry, too. More grandiose and massive than the first, the sequel iterated the series well, and delivered a marginally improved Halo game. It could never have been as groundbreaking as the first game, but for those of us who wanted more of Halo's absolutely riveting story, it delivered in spades. Well, right up until the end, anyway.
I have to wonder, though, if Bungie just didn't know how to end it, or if they just did too well with Halo 2. The story was built up to such a peak that nothing short of an atomic bomb of an ending was going to satisfy anyone. Apparently, they couldn't decide how to end Halo 2, much less the entire trilogy.
What with the advertising onslaught Microsoft broke its purse open for and the precedent set by the first two games, I was expecting the loudest, most exciting, massive, and involving Halo yet. Unfortunately, that's something that it doesn't seem Bungie even tried to do.
Don't get me wrong, Halo 3 is a good game. It's just not great. It's an impressive looking, well designed version of Halo 2 with a decent story, but it completely fails to push the series any higher. In fact, Halo 3 is rather anticlimactic after the stage Halo 2 set. Halo 2 whet an appetite that, even after the ten or so hour long Halo 3 campaign, still hasn't been fed.
The story is chaotic at best. I didn't really understand a lot of it at the time, although I've read up on it now and it makes complete sense. But even so, it mostly just seems like a linear series of subsequent, yet completely unrelated shooting sprees that conveniently tie up loose ends of the story one after another.
The multiplayer is complete, if not completely addicting. The craze over the game's multiplayer is likely due to the rabid fanbase of Halo 2. I actually found the menus confusing at first, and the gameplay leaves a bit to be desired. In the wake of fast paced online shooters like Call of Duty 4 and Battlefield, Halo's mechanics are a bit clunky, and for the most part a little generic, having more in common with Unreal Tournament than a tactical multiplayer game.
The multiplayer definitely grows on you. I'm feeling the hooks sink in more all the time as the multiplayer game I once shunned as idiot friendly and dumbed down ropes me in. The brilliance is in many of the alternate game modes that spice things up quite a bit. The replay value is quite incredible.
I've read more than one review that gave this game a glowing score, and prefaced the review apologizing for the lackluster single player gaming, asserting that Halo 3 was supposed to be just a multiplayer game anyway.
But this is no Call of Duty. Single player is where Halo was born, and is also where it should end. As one of the greatest single player games ever made, Halo has been let down by Bungie and its roots abandoned to satiate the wants of the trigger happy multiplayer denizens who are more concerned with their rank than brilliant storytelling. There is no writing off the lackluster single player: it brings down the value of the game immensely, lowering one of the most superb franchises in gaming down from spectacular to merely competent.
Out of date, scatterbrained, and run of the mill, Halo 3 is merely good if held on its own, and downright disappointing when considered amongst the other two games.