"Some think that Master Chief sleeping in a cryogenic chamber (a chamber that slows growth dramatically and would allow him to return physically the same in the future) is there merely as a cliffhanger that wants us to hope for Halo 4. Some think that this is a definite setup for a sequal. I guess we will have to wait and see!"" 

 *Please* take this down. It's embarrassing. If you are going to keep the Ending Cinematic section, you could start by stating that a popular theory is that Halo 3's ending is the beginning of Marathon. - Gerald  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

  
 I don't really know if the theory proposed in your quote is bad enough to merit deletion, but it needs to be fixed so that it both doesn't sound like it was written by a 13 year-old and so that it takes an impartial stance. I think a ""Theories for the Future of Halo"" section might be warranted in this article or in the Halo article itself.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by     

 == The New York Times' Charles Herold's comments are absolute rubbish == 

  
 :The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.  

 Explicitly closing this thread per JayKeaton, in favor of a fresh discussion at Talk:Halo 3#Balancing the POV. — ::'  

  
 ""Halo 3 is a prettier Halo 2"". That's obviously not true. If you want an example on how different a sequel can be from it's previous title then compare halo 2 and halo 3. Every other critic on the planet would say he's wrong as well. Please delete this nonsensical garbage.   

 Look I'm serious about this. If we don't discuss this withen the next 24 hours I'll log onto my main account and fix this myself.   
 :Um... you should only have one account you edit from. As for the quote, I removed it, simply because it was blatant POV. One reviewer does not deserve the undue weight of a paragraph.  ()  

 :I agree. Every game is a prettier version of what came before it, thats called progress. However you cannot simplify the legions of changes between the two in such a simplistic term. Not mentioning graphical updates, you got saved flims, online co-op, rebalanced weapons, equipment, new guns/vehicles, true HD and surround sound compatibility, Forge, online stat tracking (H2 had this, but its been far improved), etc. While I do think we should post both positive and negative reviews''', we should find negative reviews that actually say something substantial. This one just dismissed the game without really explaining why.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by     
 ::Because the reviewer is stupid is not the reason to leave it out. I removed it because of Wikipedia's undue weight policy. While there are numerous people who dismiss Halo 3 as Halo 2.5'', in terms of real, published reviews, the view is distinctly in the minority so far. If we start seeing three or four other reviews like that one (or, if someone finds them already out there) we'll be sure to add it back in (albeit not with a vanity paragraph for one single reviewer.)  ()  
 ""Rubbish?"" ""Nonsensical garbage""? ""Blatant POV""? I think you two may be ex