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.

Lazthelost said:

The biggest fail here is that certain people in this forum are saying that the campaign is short and unmemorable, but they haven't played it, let alone beat it. I just started the 4th mission out of ten total,and around the 3 hour mark. So far this story has been amazing.Even more detailed than previous Halo games. I can't wait to keep playing today.


I assume that is directed at my comment.

I said it "seems" to be that way, in that this thread is about Halo: Reach's reviews, and from what I gathered reading through the comments made by reviewers and critics, points were being knocked from the overall score because of a campaign mode that wasn't living up to expectations.

I wasn't giving my personal opinion on the story, that would be silly because I haven't even played it.



A thing of beauty, strength, and grace lies behind that whiskered face.

Around the Network

A review score is (or should be) more than the sum of its features

 

But i've been on the "reviews are broken" plank for a long time. I'm a Nintendo fan, after all.



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

Honestly, the multiplayer alone warrants an incredibly high score.  The campaign, however, is near unbearable.  It has one of the worst single player modes I've ever forced myself through.  I kind of wish they had just left it out and included more multiplayer maps. 

But the argument that reviews are broken is completely legitimate.  For example, the same reviews that bashed Metroid: Other M for it's voice acting and story gave Halo a pass by either saying the campaign wasn't really important, or even worse yet, that it was SO GOOD and made you sympathize and care about the characters (it does NOT).   Having been through it,  I can now most certainly say Halo Reach is FAR worse in almost every regard (single player).  It's hokey, corny, contrived, and generic.  It's a bad Michael Bay B-rate action movie.  I've criticized Metroid Other M quite a bit, but the fact that Halo Reach gets a pass is ridiculous.  Is it all in the hype?  Possibly.  One thing I've started to realize lately though, is that reviews are:

1. For sale (advertising etc)

2. A way to promote one's love of a certain console

On multiplayer alone though, I truly believe that Reach unquestionably deserves high praise.  I guess the question is, what SHOULD A REVIEW BE?    Does it have to include every facet of the gameplay possibilities?  Do even the menu screens count?  Should excessive load screens drop the score even though it doesn't affect the game itself?  I personally believe each game is different and requires it's own criteria.  So READ the reviews, be familiar with the reviewers track record, and don't by into hype.  It's really easy to tell when a game suffers from it's own popularity.  You just have to pay attention.



You are seriousley complaining about a 9.3 metacritic score?

You understand that puts the game above masterpieces such as God of War 3, Super Street Fighter IV, Team Fortress 2, Final Fantasy X (XII and XIII as well), Arkham Asylum, Uncharted, Assassins Creed 2, RE4Wii and Shadow of the Colossus?  What's funny is every single one of those games is better.



arcane_chaos said:
Lord Flashheart said:
Aldro said:
pizzahut451 said:
Aldro said:
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 ... :>)


iranians, LOL. i love flaming them on PSN for the lulz >D

<333

GoW3 is 92 aswell. Same score as Reach x0.

Gears 3 isn't out yet.


I believe he meant God of War 3....

I said GoW not GeoW and since GoW3 is out and GeoW3 isnt, its obvious what I meant. Thanks for clearing that up though. Just have to add this!

xDD



Around the Network
perpride said:

You are seriousley complaining about a 9.3 metacritic score?

You understand that puts the game above masterpieces such as God of War 3, Super Street Fighter IV, Team Fortress 2, Final Fantasy X (XII and XIII as well), Arkham Asylum, Uncharted, Assassins Creed 2, RE4Wii and Shadow of the Colossus?  What's funny is every single one of those games is better.

Yeah cause you have played Halo Reach right?  



Aldro said:
arcane_chaos said:
Lord Flashheart said:
Aldro said:
pizzahut451 said:
Aldro said:
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 ... :>)


iranians, LOL. i love flaming them on PSN for the lulz >D

<333

GoW3 is 92 aswell. Same score as Reach x0.

Gears 3 isn't out yet.


I believe he meant God of War 3....

I said GoW not GeoW and since GoW3 is out and GeoW3 isnt, its obvious what I meant. Thanks for clearing that up though. Just have to add this!

xDD

Seeing as this is the MS forum and GoW is used for Gears here.

Mind you I've seen you guys throw hissy fits in Gears 3 threads for using GoW so this doesn't surprise me.

Also I was winding you up. Don't be so quick to bite in the future.



Lord Flashheart said:

Seeing as this is the MS forum and GoW is used for Gears here.

Mind you I've seen you guys throw hissy fits in Gears 3 threads for using GoW so this doesn't surprise me.

Also I was winding you up. Don't be so quick to bite in the future.


Needlessly winding people up is called flamebait, so just don't do it in the future and everyone will be happy.



...

Lord Flashheart said:
Aldro said:
arcane_chaos said:
Lord Flashheart said:

Gears 3 isn't out yet.


I believe he meant God of War 3....

I said GoW not GeoW and since GoW3 is out and GeoW3 isnt, its obvious what I meant. Thanks for clearing that up though. Just have to add this!

xDD

Seeing as this is the MS forum and GoW is used for Gears here.

Mind you I've seen you guys throw hissy fits in Gears 3 threads for using GoW so this doesn't surprise me.

Also I was winding you up. Don't be so quick to bite in the future.


No you weren't.  You were just wrong because the "3" gives it away.



Hackers are poor nerds who don't wash.

Torillian said:
Lord Flashheart said:
 

Seeing as this is the MS forum and GoW is used for Gears here.

Mind you I've seen you guys throw hissy fits in Gears 3 threads for using GoW so this doesn't surprise me.

Also I was winding you up. Don't be so quick to bite in the future.


Needlessly winding people up is called flamebait, so just don't do it in the future and everyone will be happy.

Oh come on not fair. i was having a laugh It's not my fault they bite too easily and are way too serious.

Besides coming into the MS forum and using GoW and not seeing the fault in that then posting badly shopped photo's isn't flaming?

Didn't realise we couldn't have a laugh and wind each other up anymore? I know I've been away for a while but this is silly.

Apparently "3" means I was wrong on something but he'll have to explain that to me.