Anybody that's read my comments here for the last few months knows that I'm excited about Reach.

That being said, reading these two 'reviews' gave me an ill feeling.  Not about the game, mind you, but I kept looking for something in these reviews that made it OBVIOUS that they actually played the game and didn't put together a well written fluff piece based on available information out there about the game.  I found nothing of substance.

Therefore I have to write off these reviews as likely fake.  Sorry.

This.

So, you are saying Halo games get high scores, right? stop being so defensive, I know how good HALO games are, I have played most of them.

What do either of you think "greater than the sum of its parts" means?

It is referring to the opinion that though some parts of an object might not be ideal on their own, when they work together, they form an overall object that surpasses the level of the individual parts themselves. Thus, greater than the sum of its parts. If you don't think a game can be greater than the sum of its parts, fine, but the question posed here, "if one of the parts isn't perfect, how can the overall game be perfect with an imperfect component?" is answered by the opinion that a game can be greater than the sum of its parts. lol.

Imagine a car, that has the best engine, best seats, best steering, best acceleration, and an above average paintjob. Now the paintjob might not be the best paintjob available, but when you consider all the facts, you might just be dealing with the best car on the market today. Thus it would be a 10.

If you instead are assuming that 10 means a game is perfect, then only 1 game could ever be perfect, because by your definition, every game is either better or worse than very equivical games, in quality, so there could only ever be one "perfect" game at any given time. A 10 is a rating just like any other, Some games are 10s.They aren't perfect, but they are the best on the market, and they are always greater than the sum of their parts.

Innovation is a criteria, but it is not a necessary one for a game to get an amazing score. For instance, Uncharted 2 has no innovation, but it is excellent nonetheless, and thus it should have gotten great reviews.

Every-so-often a game is excellent and innovative, and that is the greatest game of all time, LoZ:Ocarina of Time.

As far as importance, to the specific game, excellence in all areas is far more important than innovation, but as far as the industry as a whole, innovation is far more important than the quality or lackthereof, of any single game. It depends on your perspective.

Looks like another Halo 3, GTA, MGS 4, ME2  review fiasco.

To the people questioning this review.... don't... they are legit. I have beaten the campaign on legendary (i'm a pirate I know... but my little brother was stupid and logged into my account a few days ago and it permanently banned... karma lol) and what they said was true. Probably took me like 10 hours to do it on legendary as I'm a pretty good halo player. This is definetely the best first person shooter I have ever played. They keep mixing up the gameplay to make it interesting.

For people interested in the credit system, i've done some experimenting and it's all based on time. Did 5 minutes on firefight normally killing dudes... 297 cr. 5 min firefight being invincible and killing like 2 guys... 297 cr. Playing 5 min custom games was 297, 5 min of campaign was 297. The max amount of credits your allowed to get in one session is 4455. Which is 75 minutes. So I bought a play and charge so I could accumulate points but then I got banned.

If anyone has questions about the game I will answer them.

Well, I must have you know I do have problem with 10/10 overall, I find nothing is truly perfect. Near perfection, but never perfect.  

No i'm saying if a Halo game is good it will get good scores, if its not as good it will not get that good of scores.  They don't get high scores just because they're called Halo.

So your saying your opinion is better then the vast majority's?