"OMG |ts |-|470 3! |-|4xX0R 733t! 10 !!!!11one!!1shift1"

I realize this is probably going to get me killed, or at least beaten with a wooden spoon, but tradition usually dictates that I rant and rave upon the release of every over hyped FPS game that gets excreted from these developers. However, since I completely forgot about Bioshock - I'll have to make up for it with Halo 3.

I don't know anything about this game. What's to know really? Run. Jump. Shoot. Repeat. I realize everyone is changing their pants all over the country right now because of this game - but as usual, I don't get it. I played the other two because I unfortunately have a slightly older cousin who can't seem to get enough of mindless running and gunning. So he came over to my house 2 days in a row to play through the game he bought ME for xmas. Hooray. Will he do the same thing to me this year? NOPE. He can't - because I no longer have a 360. An unforeseen benefit... but finally a plus to losing my precious.... I can't be forced to partake in Halo action! So here we have it though. The reviews are pouring in, 9's and 9.5's abound. Yet a lot of these reviews say in so many words that it's basically Halo 2 in HD and some extra weapons. This leads me to believe that this game could have been a moldy cheeseburger crammed into a box, and because it says Halo on it, fanboy reviews would have still rated it as highly as it is. I can't say whether or not it's scores are legitimate or not, as I've obviously never touched the game... it just seems to me that since Halo 3 was destined to be this $60 orgasm from the start, maybe they should have found a few skeptics to review the game. I don't mean me. I'm not a skeptic... I passed my judgment on the entire genre as a whole many years ago. I mean people who like FPS, play them, but could care less about the game they review going into it. That way, if it has a few legitimate surprises, they will be noted as such, and the score will be tallied accordingly, and invariably, any shortcomings won't be ignored either in the interest of keeping the score up for their much anticipated pixilated prostitute. I think any game should be reviewed by an unbiased party; otherwise you get these inflated reviews over a game that really does nothing special. I mean that across the board for professional reviewers; just as I shouldn't be allowed to review FPS games because my hatred of them knows no bounds, nor should I be allowed to review RPGs, because I always find something to love about them, even the ones that are outright crap, I'd score it a bit higher because of one or two features I like, or make myself like. Racing, fighting, puzzles, platformers, sandboxes, RTS, sure I can cover those... I play them, and I enjoy them, but in the end I stay in the grey area, I can appreciate what they do, point out what they don't do, and I'll score them fairly, instead of me playing Halo and going: "Well.... Run. Jump. Shoot. Repeat. -9 points... Halo 3 gets a 1.... HEY! *Super Mystic Quest IV! Attack. -> Magic. -> Fire. Repeat. +9.5 points! Hooray!" ....a slight exaggeration, but you get the point.

*Disclaimer : I have no idea if there is such thing as a Super Mystic Quest IV... let alone I-III. I sincerely hope not. I think there was a 'Mystic Quest' by Squinix (then SquareSoft?**) though on the SNES that supposedly sucked pretty badly.

**Square Enix is the P. Diddly-Dog-Doo of video games... always changing their name. I can't keep up.

bastards.