It's tired cliché that you never get a second chance to make a first impression.

Despite rampant accusations of having a story that's derivative pulp, the first half of Halo 3 is not a tired cliché, nor does it need a second chance to make a first impression.

Hearing from a number of reviewers and community members who played through the game in a single sitting under Bungie's purview, I've decided to play no more than two campaign levels a day in order to savor the experience. To get my Halo 3 fix the rest of the day, I watch films of those levels, hunt for skulls, or play around in Forge. I understand why those people wanted to get through the game right away, and why Bungie wanted reviewers to play the whole game. Community members knew they wouldn't be able to go on much longer without someone spoiling the ending for them. Bungie knew it would be best for reviewers to have a complete experience-- at least, the most complete experience you can get from 8-15 hours of a game that probably has as much if not more replayability value as Halo 1 and 2 combined. However, I refuse to be rushed.

So far my observations on the game read like a laundry list of complaints about Halo 2 suitably addressed. Were Halo 2's cutscenes too long, too numerous, the number of occasions where the Chief or the Arbiter was not under your control too annoying, just to set up the next mission? Check. Halo 3's early cutscenes are fairly short and to the point, and more things play out in-game. Even some of the same storytelling mechanics used over, like the holograms of Truth delivering bits of monologue here and there, are better used. Instead of hearing Regret pontificating to nobody in particular, we get snippets of conversation from Truth as he gives instructions to his troops and muses on what those pesky humans will do next.

The new look and voice for Truth takes some getting used to. Michael Wincott as the voice of Truth in Halo 2 was, in my opinion, spot-on. Why he didn't get the nod for Halo 3, I don't know, but Terence Stamp's rendition seems a little more affected and hollow in comparison. It almost seems that in trying to emulate Wincott's delivery, Truth ends up getting a breathy, blustery voice that is somehow devoid of the real menace and malice that Stamp brought to General Zod in Superman II.

Commander Keyes also gets a new look and a new voice, both of which seem to be improvements. She and a new Lord Hood (same voice, updated visage-- he looks like he needs a shave) trade a couple of wincing lines, but just grin and bear it.

But back to the game. Ever complain that some missions in Halo 2 seemed like filler, where all you had to do was progress from A to B while shooting, performing acts of little or no import on the story (Uprising, I'm looking at you). I know I did. None of that so far in Halo 3. Every move, every encounter, is towards a concrete goal that the game gives you in advance. Perhaps that will peter out towards the end, as it did in Halo 2, but so far mission goals seem tightly defined, with encounters supporting the overall action.

The actions of your enemies also seem to make more sense. Ever wonder what, exactly, wandering groups of Elites and Grunts were doing besides hanging around waiting for you to show up? Halo 3 goes to great lengths in places to show what they're up to. You'll come across a Brute interrogating a soldier-- if you're quick, you can save him. (I only managed it at Normal difficulty, on Heroic, he bought it each time so far.)

It might seem like a tired repetition when Sergeant Johnson is taken prisoner and your mission is to rescue him. After all, so far we've had to rescue Captain Keyes twice, and as the Arbiter freed Johnson and then Keyes, and as the Master Chief rescued several bands of Marines either captured or pinned down by enemy action. In Halo 3, though, this plays out in a fresh new way, as the Arbiter suggests the Brutes captured Johnson specifically to draw the Master Chief's attention. It's true that everything that happens in a game world revolves around the player, but it's nice when the designers come up with plausible reasons for this to be so.

Ever complain that you couldn't really shoot down a Phantom? In Halo 3, you can-- I haven't managed it yet, but I'm trying.

I went on at length about how the Scarab battle in Halo 2, while fun, was unsatisfying on a number of levels. The Scarab itself wasn't destructible, it never threatened the player directly, it moved along a preset path the same way every time, and when you finally do destroy it, you don't see how.

Every single one of those complaints is suitably rectified in Halo 3. The Scarab is a full battlefield participant now. It is armed to the teeth, agile, mobile, and hostile. In addition to its main weapon, which it will use on you if it gets the chance, there is a large turret up top and manned turrets on the sides. In Halo 2, Sergeant Johnson said they were tough, but not invincible. At that time, it was a lie. You couldn't damage the Scarab at all, and when all the enemies inside were destroyed, the game shifted to a cutscene of it inexplicably exploding, without any action by you whatsoever. This time, it's true. You can blow its leg joints off with a rocket or missile launcher, make your way to a glowing panel that looks like an engine, and pound away on the Scarab's innards until it explodes. Just get clear, first. On every level and at every moment this battle, which plays out beneath a series of dogfights between UNSC Hornets and Covenant Banshees, is enjoyable and satisfying in all the ways that the Scarab battle in Halo 2 was not.

As a large number of otherwise "perfect" reviews have grudgingly stated, nothing is ever really perfect. I'm sure that as time goes on, I'll find things to complain about Halo 3.

I'm probably going to have to work at it pretty hard, though. Right now, I'm having too much fun.