Quantcast
I played Halo Reach for some time now. Reviews are broken.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - I played Halo Reach for some time now. Reviews are broken.

hsrob said:

A Metascore of 93 and "reviews are broken".  When 93 starts becoming an unacceptable score then I'd argue that people's perceptions are broken.


maybe the expections are just too high?



Around the Network

I'm sure Halo: Reach deserves better praise even though it's getting rave reviews but in the end it's just reviews and some reviewers just don't like Halo.



I'm slowly falling for the hype........

I really liked Halo 3 but I didn't buy ODST.  I'm not really an FPS fan but Reach is calling me......and I must answer.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!

Reasonable said:
Dallinor said:

Looks like it's losing points for the campaign. Seems like it's short and not very memorable.


Yup - what's funny given the thread is that the reviews are actually pretty consistent so far, falling into two basic bands:

1 - very glowing reviews which note the SP campaign faults but decide that given how important the MP is they'll more or less ignore them

2 - very good reviews which note the same things but chose not to simply give the weaker SP a free pass because it's all about the MP

Personally, if you include SP I believe it should be weighed equally, and hence for me not just Reach but titles like MW2 would lose a point right away on the SP.

As one review I read said, if you love the MP only or that's your focus.  Almost perfect.  If you love SP only or that's your focus your going to be a bit dissapointed and find merely a good game.

Arguing about a Meta of 93 is hilarious though, really.  Given the obvious comparison to Uncharted 2 I'd said the clear focus isn't so much Halo 3 scoring higher but Uncharted 2, the PS3s flagship critical darling (or one of them) scored more on average.

One other thing, I also get the impression from most reviews that a title featuring Master Chief and a more Halo 1/2/3 like campaign, vs what is a more ODST like campaign, would have also garnered higher scores - interesting how the reviewers seem to feel such a difference there.

I'm guessing the first big non-Bungie Halo will be a full Halo 4 featuring the Master Chief.

It seems he's bugged by Uncharted 2's higher Meta. As ridiculous as it is, it does have a certain merit though: Uncharted 2 doesn't have the same amount of content, as robust as an online, and no creation mode. That doesn't necessarily mean that all that makes Reach the better package, but the heftier one. Still doesn't mean it deserves higher scores than (as you put it) the PS3's darling either.

What I'm saying to you, Dirty, just be happy with Reach. HEAVY RAIN's Meta is nearly 10 points lower than Uncharted 2's. Which of the two would I play and enjoy more?



                                                                                                                                            

DirtyP2002 said:

Hey guys,

 

I have played Halo Reach for 5 hours now and all I can say is: It is awesome. I felt in love with this game during the multiplayer beta and the final version is so much better. The stats for multiplayer matches are way better to navigate and you can see how many medals you earned and not just which ones like in the beta. There are a few other improvements, but this should not be the topic here.

I want to talk about the reviews for Halo Reach.

Currently it sits on a 93 on metacritic. Don't get me wrong, this is a fantastic score, but they are not doing justice to the masterpiece that is Halo Reach.

How in the name of god can someone give this game a 8/10? You just can't. The content for this game is so insane that deserves a 9 alone. I don't know what people expect for a Halo game. If you go out and buy a Halo game you know one or two things about. It is a shooter, there are aliens, it comes with a multiplayer mode. You know the gameplay / controls work like they did in previous halo games and every full game sees a few improvements.

Let's compare this to other games which saw a equal or even better rating. MW2 for example:

MW2 has a very short campaign mode, a great mulitplayer mode and some offline coop gameplay. MW2 got a 94 on metacritic.

Halo reach comes with a pretty long campaign, firefight (online and offline), coop campaign, forge world (map editor), a great multiplayer, file sharing, extreme data center at bungie.net, splitscreen online gameplay, customize your spartan etc.

And it is not like all the things Halo does are executed in a bad way. Hell no. Everything works fine and smooth. Gametrailers gave it a 9.3, because they thought one or two weapons were not perfectly balanced. Seriously: WTF! I know imba weapons might ruin the fun, but there are always one or two weapons on each map that are the ones you have to get. Rocket launcher, Grenade launcher, sniper, sword. This has been the case since Halo CE. And this is nothing you can't patch. Balance patches are so common these days. Again, look at MW2. I could go everytime I see a sniper with thermal vision, heartbeat sensor and a shotgun as 2nd weapon.

Halo 3 got a 94 on meta. How can Halo Reach score lower according to different reviewers when it brings more than Halo 3? Some people said the FPS genre saw improvements especially for the multiplayer in the past 3 years. I say: The Halo 3 multiplayer is still unmatched. There is no game on consoles that offers you this much. Halo Reach got better graphics than Halo 3, better sound (grenades), much better forge world, challenges in MP matches and of course firefight as a completly new mode.

Compare it with Uncharted 2. It is a great game. I played it, it looks great, it was fun. But in the end, it was a great singeplayer campaign and a somehow basic multiplayer. Well I haven't spent so much time with the mp, but it seemed basic to me. Nothing like MW2 or Halo 3 / Halo Reach.

UC deservers the reviews it got, but Halo Reach deserves better ones that it currently has. I just miss a logic behind reviews.

All this shows that you can't trust reviews at all. If you like a game from what you have seen on screenshots, trailers or story-stuff, go and pick it up, no matter how the reviews are. If there is a game you are not interested in and it gets great reviews, you can get interested in this game.

Pretty much agree with the first reply "reviews are opinions just like your praise for halo". I guess some people just didn't think it was that amazing regardless of its contents and execution. Something can be done so very well but there will always be faggots that don't enjoy it (Dont take the faggot thing to seriously xD).

As for Uncharted 2, I absolutely love and adore the MP. I've met about 8 people that speak my language (Persian) and we have so much fun going in parties and screaming "allahu ackbar" while throwing grenades and shooting. The co-op objectes and the DLC also adds so much to it. The MP is really fun, you just need people to play it with. Its also extremly hard to beat all of the co-op on crushing in my opinion.

The 8 people I play with, play the game every single day. So whenever I feel like playing Uncharted, I just jump in! Its awesome and I am truly grateful for meeting the first persian that introduced me to everyone. God bless your matchmaking Naughty Dog xDD. (I live in Sweden and I got matched up with someone from Sweden but what are the odds that the 1 PERSON was speaking my language xD).

Anyway, I have to agree that I find it pretty odd that Reach can get lower metascore than Halo 3. It offers more and it doesn't look worse in any way really.

EDIT: Just wanted to say that I love that my flagship and darling Uncharted 2 is untouchable at 96 meta xD. (Dont pay attention to the persian ... :>)



Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
Reasonable said:
Dallinor said:

Looks like it's losing points for the campaign. Seems like it's short and not very memorable.


Yup - what's funny given the thread is that the reviews are actually pretty consistent so far, falling into two basic bands:

1 - very glowing reviews which note the SP campaign faults but decide that given how important the MP is they'll more or less ignore them

2 - very good reviews which note the same things but chose not to simply give the weaker SP a free pass because it's all about the MP

Personally, if you include SP I believe it should be weighed equally, and hence for me not just Reach but titles like MW2 would lose a point right away on the SP.

As one review I read said, if you love the MP only or that's your focus.  Almost perfect.  If you love SP only or that's your focus your going to be a bit dissapointed and find merely a good game.

Arguing about a Meta of 93 is hilarious though, really.  Given the obvious comparison to Uncharted 2 I'd said the clear focus isn't so much Halo 3 scoring higher but Uncharted 2, the PS3s flagship critical darling (or one of them) scored more on average.

One other thing, I also get the impression from most reviews that a title featuring Master Chief and a more Halo 1/2/3 like campaign, vs what is a more ODST like campaign, would have also garnered higher scores - interesting how the reviewers seem to feel such a difference there.

I'm guessing the first big non-Bungie Halo will be a full Halo 4 featuring the Master Chief.

It seems he's bugged by Uncharted 2's higher Meta. As ridiculous as it is, it does have a certain merit though: Uncharted 2 doesn't have the same amount of content, as robust as an online, and no creation mode. That doesn't necessarily mean that all that makes Reach the better package, but the heftier one. Still doesn't mean it deserves higher scores than (as you put it) the PS3's darling either.

What I'm saying to you, Dirty, just be happy with Reach. HEAVY RAIN's Meta is nearly 10 points lower than Uncharted 2's. Which of the two would I play and enjoy more?

Halo (and Modern Warfare and a lot of other FPS on both platforms like Killzone 2) tend to be judged more for the MP and often any flaws in SP are simply ignored, as per my point.  With Uncharted 2, it's clear the reverse was the norm.  The title was judged primarly for its fantastic SP campaign and, with the MP being new, the MP was seen as a bonus.

The MP in Uncharted 2 is pretty robust though.  It might not have create but it's up there with most strong MP offerings in terms of theatre mode and the like.

But yeah, I get the feeling that's the real issue here.

Pity, as I'd just enjoy Reach myself, with a meta of 93 a better engine, better, bigger maps and a massive MP.  But hey, if someone want's to sweat about a few metacritic points I guess that's up to them.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

Reviews are opinion so is yours... lol I can't seriously believe people are complaining about a 93 meta..I mean REALLY?

this is beyond a sad situation...93 meta is AMAZING! geez get over it and enjoy your game, take meta for it's content not the score



In-Kat-We-Trust Brigade!

"This world is Merciless, and it's also very beautiful"

For All News/Info related to the PlayStation Vita, Come and join us in the Official PSV Thread!

CGI-Quality said:
Reasonable said:
Dallinor said:

Looks like it's losing points for the campaign. Seems like it's short and not very memorable.


Yup - what's funny given the thread is that the reviews are actually pretty consistent so far, falling into two basic bands:

1 - very glowing reviews which note the SP campaign faults but decide that given how important the MP is they'll more or less ignore them

2 - very good reviews which note the same things but chose not to simply give the weaker SP a free pass because it's all about the MP

Personally, if you include SP I believe it should be weighed equally, and hence for me not just Reach but titles like MW2 would lose a point right away on the SP.

As one review I read said, if you love the MP only or that's your focus.  Almost perfect.  If you love SP only or that's your focus your going to be a bit dissapointed and find merely a good game.

Arguing about a Meta of 93 is hilarious though, really.  Given the obvious comparison to Uncharted 2 I'd said the clear focus isn't so much Halo 3 scoring higher but Uncharted 2, the PS3s flagship critical darling (or one of them) scored more on average.

One other thing, I also get the impression from most reviews that a title featuring Master Chief and a more Halo 1/2/3 like campaign, vs what is a more ODST like campaign, would have also garnered higher scores - interesting how the reviewers seem to feel such a difference there.

I'm guessing the first big non-Bungie Halo will be a full Halo 4 featuring the Master Chief.

It seems he's bugged by Uncharted 2's higher Meta. As ridiculous as it is, it does have a certain merit though: Uncharted 2 doesn't have the same amount of content, as robust as an online, and no creation mode. That doesn't necessarily mean that all that makes Reach the better package, but the heftier one. Still doesn't mean it deserves higher scores than (as you put it) the PS3's darling either.

What I'm saying to you, Dirty, just be happy with Reach. HEAVY RAIN's Meta is nearly 10 points lower than Uncharted 2's. Which of the two would I play and enjoy more?

To be fair though when uncharted 3 comes out you'll see the same thing from fans of that series too.  I guarantee right now that Uncharted 3 will be a better game than Uncharted 2 but score worse on meta.  Reviewers put too much weight on evolution and "moving the bar" to actually concentrate on the main factor which is if the game is actually fun imo. 

It doesn't matter to me as I don't care about the scores and always read the text of a review but every time these AAA titles are released I dream of the day someone actually removes the stupid overall score from reviews.



I think the Halo series has some of the first single player campaigns out of all "AAA" titles, ABYSMAL campaigns, Halo 1,2,3 all had me bored to tears. Of course, that doesnt' stop some people from calling them masterpieces, to each his own.



bRoKeN said:

reviews are opinions just like your praise for halo

thread