Going quite far back for what I consider “modern” games. BUT it was part of the Wii/360/PS3 era which is the cutting point for my divide between the two. Plus with the awful TV adaption that has anyone with even a cursory look at the game plot yelling . So let’s look at one of the games which at the time was hailed as one of the best games of all time

The third in the Halo Series of games and the finale of the original story, Halo 3 had big shoes to fill and was rightfully hyped. Not only was this the first Halo game on the 360 and thus a new generation, it was the end of that story of which Halo 2 had, to the annoyance of many, ended on quite a considerable cliffhanger (also Halo 2 was very well received so it had to stand amongst the greats).

The game opens up with the chief crashing down to Earth… literally. He is quickly picked up by Sgt Johnson and the arbiter (oh, wouldn’t it be terrible if a TV series completely ignored or bungled these fan favourites? but fortunately no writer would be so arrogant or stupid to do that… ok that was the last stab at the TV series) leading through the first level in a jungle. You quickly see the new status quo for the covenant as the brutes have replaced the elites, sadly the rest is the same, which is a bit of a missed opportunity since Halo 2 had the grunts and hunters on the sides of the elites, but to presumably save you from confusion you only get friendly elites in this game.

The Arbiter is relegated this time to being the section player character in co op (with 2 other elites for 3 and 4 but they won’t show up unless it’s co op) who will appear on levels normally if only playing single player, they basically become bros in this game.

Single player first has you fighting to remove the covenant threat from Earth as they are digging something up before leading into a full potential galaxy wide apocalypse that you must prevent… AND THEN save Cortana and stop the flood from doing a different galaxy wide apocalypse. This leads to many of the levels being quite different geographically with the only 2 that are the same being quite intentional for story purposes (a bit like the first game in that regard)

Mechanically there is little difference between Halo 2 and 3. Health is still the regen shield variety, you can still duel wield some weapons. If you can play 2 you can play 3. There are some differences like being able to pull out turrets and use them with now limited ammo but mobile (be it slow moving) as well as the introduction of equipment which are primarily non damaging but do things like set up a barrier or provide limited invincibility.

Multiplayer returns now with considerably more customizations on characters other than just playing as a spartan or elite and colours allowing your character to be your own personal appearance. Also there’s the new Forge mode allowing you to make your own multiplayer maps to some degree depending on the main map you choose (this becomes much bigger in Reach).

Obviously there’s also new weapons and vehicles but that’s standard with new entries in FPS franchises.

So is it still worth being called one of the best games of all time? well it and Reach are certainly the go to best Halo games, so… definitely worth your time… much more than that horrid TV series.

Rating: