@Yo_John

Chill out dude, Halo 3 got plenty of scores below 90 and it still managed a 94, hell it got scores below 80 too.

Currently after 22 reviews Reach has a 93 with 8 of those being perfect scores making roughly 36 percent of the total reviews as perfect. Meanwhile Halo 3 only had 23 percent of its total reviews as being perfect.

Also take into account that many reviewers lowered Halo 3's score because they said it didn't meet the level of hype and epicness they expected from the marketing. While Reach will undoubtedly suffer some of the same, the advertising campaign wasn't as in your face as Halo 3's was which will probably mean that some of the more obscure review sites actually mark it fairly and not off some preconceived notion of what they expect the game to be.

The score has already gone down to a 92 with 17 reviews and back up to a 93 with 22 so more reviews don't necessarily mean the score is going to go down. In fact I'm willing to bet it stays around a 93.

And even if it doesn't, who really cares. Play the game, enjoy it and don't stress over what other people say. Some of the greatest novels and movies of all time were seen as complete disasters by critics when they first came out and were only seen for their brilliance a decade or more later.

I wouldn't really care much a about the meta score at all, especially if there are only small differences between to similar games or games of the same genre. One of my favourite games this gen only got a meta score of 83, but I think it's awesome. But I agree, fanboys use meta scores to undermine how good games are, that's why I stopped listening to people who use only the meta score to argue if a game is better or not than another one.

So we all get bored with it and spend the new standard $15 for new ones. If this is the price I will hate Activision more than ever. We must hope bungie and microsoft don't try to screw us by continuing COD annoying trend of paying more and getting less.

If you are going to bring up that perspective ( one which I agree with 100% ),then it's only fair for me to point out that it works both ways. These meta scores are used as weapons in a fanboy war. Don't think that there wouldn't be some 360 fans pushing a 96 meta in everyone's face being equally annoying.

I personally don't care what the scores or reviews have to say. They will have ZERO impact on what I think of the game. 

Meta-wise it doesn't stack up against the best of the best for 360 in 2010. With ME2 only having 1 out of 98 reviews coming in at below 90, as far as Meta Critic goes ME2 is untouchable (ME2 even beats last year's uber-Meta game UC2 for least reviews below 90).

Reach is still ahead of RDR though in that RDR has 9 reviews below 90, and H:R only has 4 as of this post.

Current Meta as of this post 93.

This game is going to win a good number of GOTY's but I think this year the spoils will be shared among a few games, unlike last year's lopsided affair. 360 console exclusive exclusive exclusive (ME2 [still a console exclusive for the purposes of 2010 GOTY) H:R), in addition to RDR may get 360 the most GOTYs for 2010.

Well, not the best game ever like some have said it seems. Very solid scores though.

that'a gonna be the game of the year for shure

x2 what a biased mother f****.

Games Reactor Sweden and Norway : 10

Resolution : 8

Game Revolution : 95 A/A

M2G : 9/10

Techland : 9.8

Mirror UK : 5/5

Gamer 365 : 9.5

GamersLounge : 5/5

Kombo : 9.5

iTavisen : 6/6

"One of my favourite games this gen only got a meta score of 83, but I think it's awesome"

One of my favorites this gen got even less then that. Then games I think are horrible have got really high scores.  

A lot of the Reach reviews still bash ODST, which Is probably my favorite Halo Campaign.  The sooner people stop worrying about review scores about games they will never play anyway, the better.