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.