It's an opinion. Nothing more, nothing less. If people let it bother them then the reviewer has already won and probably has a raging boner knowing something he has written has caused such a kerfuffle.

....Fail. Halo Reach isn't like the other Halos.

Iron sights in Halo is like putting shit on icrecream.

I am playing the game and the reviewer is basically being unprofessional in a manner that suggest his work was meant to enrage fans of the game so as to increase the site's traffic.
Honestly, I'm enjoying the game a lot more than I ever thought I will - keep in my I am a Sony fanboy -, coming right off the bat from the nostalgia trip that is the Anniversary edition of Halo: CE. For someone like me who has been interested in Hallo since 1998 and has always held the trilogy in highest regards, to come into a, let's face it, unwanted sequel and be pleased...well, it's an achievement I'd say for the developers.

Now, allow me to steer the discussion towards something: many reviewers have been yammering about the game remaining Halo through and through, and refusing to move into a new era for shooters - which I, for one, abhor -. But is that actually a sin anymore? This is the 7th full release Halo title. People who have been uninterested in the series in the past 10 years will likely continue to be uninterested in it, and those that are...will always buy Halo for Halo. So I ask, in all seriousness, is it wrong for a series to stick to what it actually is?
Do we want Kratos to suddenly grow deep, human feelings and spend the next game picking flowers and talking to woodland animals, even break out in a little song and dance?
Do we want the next Burnout game - if there ever will be one - to feature fully realistic GT5 / Forza 4 driving where a crash will likely be frown upon and penalized?
Do we want the next Souls game to be a streamlined experience that can appeal to a broader audience than ever before?
Or do we want StarCraft to go the way of Command & Conquer because they can't leave the fucking formula alone?
Or maybe Gordon Freeman should start talking in an Irish accent in the next Half Life, repeatedly calling everyone "Bro" and slurring vague insults in regards to the sexual orientations of his enemies?
And even better, let's outfit Mario with a freaking flamethrower and set about the complete destruction of the Mushroom Kingdom, all the while Necromorphs roam in the background, slicing the poor Toads to pieces and infecting their sweet, succul.....where was I going with this?

I personally find these cries to "Innovate! Innovate! Innovate! More and more and more! We don't know how, JUST DO IT!" to be rather alarming for our entertainment, everything in the end leading to the same grayish brown tasteless paste that is the current generation landscape of Shooters. Innovation is fine and dandy...but sometimes you just need to stick to what works, for as long as it works. Sure, you will want something different at one point, but let that something different be something NEW, not a mutation of something with an already clear identity of its own.

That problem isn't him wanting the game to evolve. It's the specific things which he wants Halo to have. He assumes that elements like iron sights are an evolution in the sense that it's naturally higher quality, which it is not.

You've just stated one of the great paradoxes of our day my friend.

Halo is doing something that most other games right now ARE NOT. It's been doing it for 10 years and, right now, it's different from the mass of gritty, "realistic", twitch based shooters. So this becomes a rather interesting conundrum: which is actually "outdated"...the same standard that every other game on the market adheres to right this very instant...or the one game that does things differently?

When everything's the same, you get disasters like the sales of Spec Ops: The line. Great game with one of the rawest, most fascinating stories every conceived for a game, backed by fantastic characters...which did not achieve success because it ticked all the right boxes expected of a AAA release.  Yeah...they really needed to freaking evolve.

Just like Resident Evil 6 of course. Get it in line with every other 3rd person shooter out there, gut it of most of what made the series great at one point, and release it out into the wild. Gamers were indeed VERY pleased with that one...weren't they?

 EGM's "Bad" review of Halo 4 is starting to feel more and more like a VERY successful troll.....

It's not that he gave it a 7/10 its the reasons he gave for it getting a 7. 

I guess every game deservs a 7 or worse since we haven't seen any ground breaking games in years. Name one that has revolutionized the way a specific genre plays?

"...problem stems from the fact that, unlike most modern games that claim to care about narrative, Halo 4 doesn’t seem interested in moving into modern storytelling via integrated objectives.."

So, the problem is than it isnt CoD.

"...when it comes to game mechanics and level design, ignoring obvious enhancements like big-ticket sequences and proper iron-sights mechanics in favor of their age-old addiction to slow, methodical combat in unnecessarily large environments..."

Once again... Like CoD.

I havent read all the review, but this 2 sentences really sucks. Is that why he gave the game a 7?

I disagree.

Quite firmly really.

As I've exemplified, copying "modern designs" is not a sign of success or even evolution and may only manage to detract attention from a game's core.

You say "new mechanics that are liked"...but can you actually decide what is liked by everyone? As I've said, Halo has been Halo for 10 years now, it's become a game for the fans, for the people that buy Halo because IT IS Halo and not something else. Had they changed the gameplay to something resembling Killzone 2 - which I am a fan of -, I would not have been as happy with the game as I am now.

A game series should not be forced to adapt to some concessions of the modern age. No!

Gaming does not evolve as a whole. Gaming is not a single cellular organism that expands all at once, all the same. Gaming is a real chimeran hydra, with each head as different from the other as that one is from the rest. Gaming evolution is not linear and is not defined by one thread against another.

You bring forth the arguments of what would happen if all games would be Wolfenstein. I see what you attempted to counter, but you've missed a point by miles. The last Wolfenstein game had everything needed of a modern shooter...and it fell flat. Had someone made a retro style Wolfenstein game, I guarantee it would have gathered much more praise and success than its modern inspired official rebirth. When Doom came out it took from Wolfenstein what it needed and made something new of it. When Quake followed, it tooks what it needed again and built upon it. Half Life adapted the bits of gameplay from its forerunners and built on them, ushering in a new age for gaming. And so forth.

Halo is Halo. It has always been Halo and I hope it will always be Halo.Halo is the story of Master Chief and Cortana, of the Covenant and of the Flood, of the Forerunners and of our own path in the Universe, all wrapped in a gameplay that has suffered few mutations over time against its core.

Yes, not all games should be like Halo. But do not make Halo like all games either,  as it would become a different beast then However, would it not be far more benefical for everyone if a developer would take what is good here, and what is good somewhere else, and create something new out of it? Like Uncharted for example, a mishmash of concepts and story bits that together formed a new franchize that is quite good and gathers quite some success - regardless of individual feelings towards the series -.

I believe in expectations being set on a game based on what it actually is and where it actually aims. I don't believe that ANY marketing stunt could have saved Halo 4 from being marked a cash grab, as I also do not believe it's a game made to gather new audiences. Why should it? It already has a HUGE fanbase that wants its Halo and will gather good sales regardless.

Isn't it maybe the same as with every single Nintendo propriety? Every year they release the same game, with better graphics, new levels, some tweaks...but basically the very same game. And it is loved for what it is, for what those that bought it wanted out of it. Wouldn't it be BETTER for everyone that moans about Mario being released for the 900th time to actually ask for something completely new?

The core problem is not games copying other games.

The core problem in gaming is that gamers have no effing clue of what they actually want and expect of a game. Had Halo become a Call of Duty clone, it would have been rallied against for that reason. It stuck close to home, it's being rallied against for this. You can't please everyone, can't meet every opinion, can't be perfect to everyone. There will be games of a certain type, and there will be games of another type, and nobody can decide against which is actually better. I've had in my life more fun in Unreal Tournament and Quake 3 Arena than I've ever gathered in a military shooter a lá Call of Duty, Counter Strike or Battlefield. Can you honestly tell me your type of gaming is more advanced than mine because it lets you pretend to look down the barell of a virtual gun and because it takes only two bullets to down an enemy?

If so...I am sorry to be wasting both our times on this.