With Halo 3 just around the corner, the question is, will it define the Xbox 360 the way the original Halo defined the Xbox? Is Halo 3 going to reclaim the throne that Gears of War has been keeping warm for the last 6 months, or is it simply going to ride off quietly into the sunset and hope for a graceful exit? Well, the Halo 3 hype machine is officially up and running, and "quietly" is out of the question. The stakes are high and the bar has been significantly raised by Gears of War in both gameplay and visuals. At best, Halo 3 will deliver something we've never seen before in a shooter, including better graphics than Gears of War and blow our minds. At worst, it will be passed off as Halo 2.5 filled with more of the same content as in the last two Halos, with slightly upgraded graphics. At this point it seems to be leaning more towards the latter, based on the recently released multiplayer beta.

A side by side comparison of Halo 2's and Halo 3's multiplayer reveals a minor graphical improvement for Halo 3. The casual observer will be hard pressed to notice any differences other than a marginally sharper picture quality in Halo 3. Of course, the Halo fanboy will be quick to recommend a new set of eyes and half a brain to those who have something else to say besides, "Halo 3 is AWESOME, it's waaay better than Halo 2 and definitely better than Gears of War!" In reality, you would need a blindfold or have "the emperor's new clothes syndrome" to be able to say that Halo 3 is a major step up from Halo 2. It could be that our expectations might be just a little too high. But the fact is, Halo forever set the standard for console shooters and it is only fair to expect Halo 3 to set the new standard as it makes its next-gen debut, even surpassing the ones set by Gears of War.

Then come the telltale signs that Halo 3 will fall short, if not miserably short, of the mark set by Gears. The argument that Halo 3 should not be compared to Gears is the first indication of Halo 3’s weakness. Many contend that the two games have completely different styles of gameplay and to make comparisons between them would be invalid. Even if that statement was true, which it isn't, the fact is great games go far beyond their respective genres and could be compared to other great games. Ask the developers of Gears of War why it is better than Oblivion and they'd be quick to point out several things, may it be graphics, the appeal to the masses, the intensity or whatever else that makes Gears such a great game. But you can be sure that Epic won’t dance around the question with an answer like, "Gears of War is a totally different type of game from Oblivion, you shouldn't be comparing those two!" Obviously, Gears and Halo 3 have a lot more in common than Gears and Oblivion. They are shooters, period, first person or third person. For Halo fans to say that it isn't right to compare the two is to admit that Gears is in a different stratosphere from Halo 3 and it wouldn't be fair to judge Halo 3 by the same standards.

Let's compare Halos to Halos and Gears to Gears. Well, we can try, but it’s impossible. Let's start with the graphics. We've seen the beta of Halo 3's multiplayer and as I've already mentioned, it's not a huge leap over Halo 2's multiplayer. There's a couple of things to keep in mind. First, it is beta and the final build is supposed to look at least a little better than the beta. Second, the graphics in the multiplayer is almost always inferior to the single player campaign, and it is possible that the campaign mode of Halo 3 will look better than the multiplayer mode. But then we have Gears of War. The graphics in the MP are just as amazing as the SP. If what we've seen in the beta is pretty close to what we'll see in the final build, and if in fact the graphics in the single player campaign turn out to be much better than the multiplayer, the question will be, how come Halo 3 wasn't able to make the multiplayer visuals equally impressive as the campaign? Gears was able to. On the other hand, if the graphical quality of the single player campaign is on the same level as the multiplayer beta we've seen, then what we'll get is nothing more than an HD version of Halo 2.

“Graphics isn't everything. I tell you, it's not! I swear.” That's what you'll hear from Halo fanboys who realize that Halo 3 has "current gen" written all over it. But let's pretend that graphics don't matter and talk about gameplay. From Halo to Halo 2, I hardly noticed any improvements over the gameplay, and will somebody please put a gag over that fanboy's mouth who's screaming, "Multiplayer, multiplayer!!!" The greatest "innovation" in Halo 2 was the ability to dual-yield weapons. And don't forget the sword, that was cool, too. What else? Nothing comes to mind that really stands out. New enemy types? Sounds more like downloadable content than a worthy sequel. Halo 3 so far hasn't given any details as to what to expect in the single player experience. Nothing specific. No new gameplay elements to speak of. Fanboy says "if ain't broke, don't fix it." But I say, if it ain't broke, make it better anyway. So how exactly can Halo 3 be better? It's a run-and-gun shooter, the rich man's Serious Sam. To deviate from that gameplay style is to have thousands of rabid fans with torches and a rope knocking down Bungie's doors. The niche' that Halo managed to get itself stuck in is perhaps limiting its potential to rule the next generation shooter genre. It’s okay to borrow elements from other games. Innovation doesn’t necessarily have to be ground-breaking. It is possible for a game to innovate just itself, and not the whole genre. Call of Duty 2 and Gears of War borrowed the regenerating health system from Halo, and both games are more fun and better because of it. What features can Halo 3 borrow from other games? A cover system? To implement a cover system in Halo 3 means that the game will have to be completely overhauled. For a cover system to be of any value in Halo 3, the circle-strafe and jump 15 feet element would have to either be significantly reduced or completely done away with. That also means that the Master Chief would have to be made a lot more vulnerable for him to even have to rely on cover. It doesn’t go with his character. Best bet, no cover system. How about introducing some squad control? I think this might actually work for Halo 3. Not to turn it into a "squad-based shooter," altogether, but maybe on certain levels with the bigger maps, during large-scale battles it'd be nice to have the option of issuing simple commands to small units either to flank or provide suppressive fire that will allow the Master Chief to advance safely. How about fully destructible environments, complete with lingering smoke and debris? I know that's not necessarily a gameplay element but it will definitely help in immersing the player in the campaign. In the beta we saw the "Saved Films" feature that allows you to record your favorite battles. How about seeing that same feature in the single player campaign, with cinematic camera angles? Wouldn't it be awesome to replay an entire level and watch it as though it was a movie? For a nicer touch, how about being able to edit the movie and have total control over the camera views and even add effects like slow-mo or blurring and what not? If these ideas sound cheesy, well can anyone come up with something better? I hope Bungie does. It is their responsibility and consumers have the right to expect only the best in Halo 3.

Gears of War is the most hyped videogame since Halo 2, and it even managed to exceed the hype. Now Halo 3 must do the same. There shouldn’t be any of the garbage that tries to downplay what Gears of War has brought to the table. Instead, developers of Halo 3 must do their best to match the quality of Gears and everything it had to offer. In four months we shall all see.