I hope it's never.

I just think people who will get to rate it will be HUGE Halo fanboys and rate it a 10 before they even get to play it. Fair reviews no a days is just expecting way to much in my opinion. So yea, I don't care what some biased nit-wit reviewer will say about the game. Last I check it's more of the same, and doesn't deserve good marks unless they did a total 180 from the previous games. But even the graphics looks the same, they cannot even make it look good. And for multiplayer it looks even worse, god knows why they downgrade it. It's not like Halo campaign is even that demanding.

I am just saying, hate most "big game" reviews, especially when they come out early. They only get permission if it's good, or other stupid stipulations. Not like they can do what ever, they sign a contract/agreement. Everyone has some objective, and how shady MS has been recently, I expect nothing more but something pathetic. I will honestly be happy if Halo Reach gets a "9.0" from IGN and stuff, so I can actually read it and see faults. Halo's have been far from perfect and a lower-ish rating will probably be the "real" reviews. When games are exclusive, this is where it's worst in my opinion. Cause sometimes reviewers give the feeling that they are standing up for a console, rather than rating the game alone.

I hate review sites, they need to have like 5-10 people review a game for a average score. So one biased idiot doesn't ruin it. I like honest reviews from objective people. It's like, all cause I think Uncharted 2 is in the top 2-3 best games this generation, I still wouldn't give it a 10. Sorry for many rant, just thought I'd say how I hate what campany's do, on both sides of the spectrum.

IGN's review comes out Saturday September 11.

IGN's review comes out Saturday September 11.

Do you know if thats the first review for Halo Reach (not including little fanboy blogs that pretend to reveiw.)

I hope it's never.

I just think people who will get to rate it will be HUGE Halo fanboys and rate it a 10 before they even get to play it. Fair reviews no a days is just expecting way to much in my opinion. So yea, I don't care what some biased nit-wit reviewer will say about the game. Last I check it's more of the same, and doesn't deserve good marks unless they did a total 180 from the previous games. But even the graphics looks the same, they cannot even make it look good. And for multiplayer it looks even worse, god knows why they downgrade it. It's not like Halo campaign is even that demanding.

I am just saying, hate most "big game" reviews, especially when they come out early. They only get permission if it's good, or other stupid stipulations. Not like they can do what ever, they sign a contract/agreement. Everyone has some objective, and how shady MS has been recently, I expect nothing more but something pathetic. I will honestly be happy if Halo Reach gets a "9.0" from IGN and stuff, so I can actually read it and see faults. Halo's have been far from perfect and a lower-ish rating will probably be the "real" reviews. When games are exclusive, this is where it's worst in my opinion. Cause sometimes reviewers give the feeling that they are standing up for a console, rather than rating the game alone.

I hate review sites, they need to have like 5-10 people review a game for a average score. So one biased idiot doesn't ruin it. I like honest reviews from objective people. It's like, all cause I think Uncharted 2 is in the top 2-3 best games this generation, I still wouldn't give it a 10. Sorry for many rant, just thought I'd say how I hate what campany's do, on both sides of the spectrum.

I hope it's never.

I just think people who will get to rate it will be HUGE Halo fanboys and rate it a 10 before they even get to play it. Fair reviews no a days is just expecting way to much in my opinion. So yea, I don't care what some biased nit-wit reviewer will say about the game. Last I check it's more of the same, and doesn't deserve good marks unless they did a total 180 from the previous games. But even the graphics looks the same, they cannot even make it look good. And for multiplayer it looks even worse, god knows why they downgrade it. It's not like Halo campaign is even that demanding.

I am just saying, hate most "big game" reviews, especially when they come out early. They only get permission if it's good, or other stupid stipulations. Not like they can do what ever, they sign a contract/agreement. Everyone has some objective, and how shady MS has been recently, I expect nothing more but something pathetic. I will honestly be happy if Halo Reach gets a "9.0" from IGN and stuff, so I can actually read it and see faults. Halo's have been far from perfect and a lower-ish rating will probably be the "real" reviews. When games are exclusive, this is where it's worst in my opinion. Cause sometimes reviewers give the feeling that they are standing up for a console, rather than rating the game alone.

I hate review sites, they need to have like 5-10 people review a game for a average score. So one biased idiot doesn't ruin it. I like honest reviews from objective people. It's like, all cause I think Uncharted 2 is in the top 2-3 best games this generation, I still wouldn't give it a 10. Sorry for many rant, just thought I'd say how I hate what campany's do, on both sides of the spectrum.