It's one thing to always see the glass half full, or to always look for the flaw in an otherwise brilliant diamond.

There's also such a thing as being a spoiler; having no other purpose than to be contrary, "alternative", or to actively dislike that which others like for the sake of disagreement itself.

You can be the judge of which category Charles Herold at the New York Times falls into with his review of Halo 3:

It is difficult to say that one likes, but does not love, a Halo game. Halo fans are so worshipful of the series that anything short of drooling admiration is seen as something akin to blasphemy. One is expected to love Halo games the way one is expected to love Harry Potter, "American Idol," Tom Hanks, the Beatles and chocolate (some of which I love, some of which I don't).

Yet, while Halo 3 is a slickly produced, exciting, well-made shooter, I wouldn't class it as one of those creations that rival the importance of bendable straws or casual Fridays. And saying that could well result in a few angry letters.

It doesn't really matter what reviewers say, though. Halo 3 is not just a game: it is a phenomenon fueled by obsessed fans, slick advertising and excessive press coverage (of which I find myself a part).

Perhaps there is the real core of Herold's criticism of Halo 3: it renders the opinion of reviewers irrelevant. For shame!