Just so the dastardly scheme doesn't work, I'll post to the summary complete reproduction of the post at xbox360Rally. GameDaily is offering an article called "six reasons to pass up on this crappy game" that is filled with nonsense and self-contradictions. Not to mention, it's basically six paragraphs on six separate pages. First they complain about the Arbiter being in Halo 2, and then complain that they can't fight against UNSC forces in Halo 3. Wha? Then they complain it's "too familiar"-- as if the "familiar" elements of Halo 3 aren't similar to just about every other FPS on the planet. They complain about cheaters, and finish off by saying they regret giving Halo 2 a 10/10 and will be more objective about Halo 3.

Revisionist history at its best. They're basically saying either they don't stand by their review, in which case they have no integrity, or they got suckered into rating the game too high, in which case they are incapable of discriminating. Either way, it means you might as well not bother reading what they write about Halo 3; whether good or bad, they'll reverse themselves in a few years if it helps them make a convenient point.

Bioshock is, by all accounts, an incredible-looking story-driven shooter with deep gameplay for the Xbox 360.

So is Halo 3.

The major difference between the two of them-- on top of Halo's multiplayer, saved films and map editing features, is that Bioshock is out already, and Halo 3 is not.

Despite this, on Amazon.com, two editions of Halo 3, the regular and limited, are both outselling Bioshock, according to Next-Generation. That's crazy.

I don't see this as a slight to Bioshock at all, just a testament to just how much anticipation there is for Halo 3.