Your a troll*I'll take the 2week ban..seeing Im more or less swamped at work*

1) Mw2 and 1...2-4hrs on hardest setting...(infact beat mw2 3hrs...and was like..thats it at the end....8(*

2) After how many stis*mister 1k words..if you took the time to read ign others said 9hrs on hard.....which btw who the fug plays Halo on anything less than mufo heroic!*

3) ''Paper thin plot" compared to what? Oblivion..yaya..I close X gate 99 times...I beat game at lvl 1 but sit on a meta of 93 ...oh you mean compared to gta4??...shit...You ever seen Master fug'n chief use a Cell phone...?...dude I have more to do than run around in something I painted in water colors and soory adult friend finder is a much more engorssing dating sim than taking my fat friend to shot darts.

4) K rant over.

5) Fug no it's not.

You think folks Play killzone2*which is a great game but I  liked KZ1 better gameplay wise* or folks that bought MW1/2 jumped at it for the "single player"....?

Back out the thread...

You reek troll..and as such..your comment has no merit.

Excuse the typo's etc...cell phone typing isnt my mad skillz...

Wow are you really bothered by 1 point?  As a whole I see Reach being a much better game, will anyone in the end care about 1 point on meta?  No.  In the end will anyone care about the final Meta score anyway?  No, it'll sell millions because it has appeal to many many gamers and it's a quality game.  

Meta and Gamerankings are good tools for those that are on the fence and want "professional" advice about games they are looking at, if you're gonna buy it anyway, why care?  If you're not gonna buy it anyway, why care?  If you care cause of some my console has good scores yours doesn't debate... no one else cares... in the end use the tool for what it was intended  complaining about a single point difference between Reach and 3 is futile and pointless argument.

Looks like it's losing points for the campaign. Seems like it's short and not very memorable.

Let the butthurt flow.Like another user said reviews are an opinion just like yours. Deal with it.

So you didn't read my post then. (That wasn't a question so don't even attempt to answer)

Those views are not mine, they are the views of the reviewers who gave the game 80/100 on metacritic. This would be known to you if you had actually read my post. Nowhere did I say I which of those comments I agree with and which I don't, and considering you are only on this site to argue, I don't think I shall even bother doing so at all.

So in conclusion, actually, who am I kidding, you didn't bother reading my first post, so you aren't going to have bothered reading this one. I can say what I want and it won't even be read. Ibble bibble bobble, I feel like a tree stuck in a washing machine.

A Metascore of 93 and "reviews are broken".  When 93 starts becoming an unacceptable score then I'd argue that people's perceptions are broken.

well read the review that gave the game an 8/10 and they might explain why it got an 8, no game isnt perfect

Yup - what's funny given the thread is that the reviews are actually pretty consistent so far, falling into two basic bands:

1 - very glowing reviews which note the SP campaign faults but decide that given how important the MP is they'll more or less ignore them

2 - very good reviews which note the same things but chose not to simply give the weaker SP a free pass because it's all about the MP

Personally, if you include SP I believe it should be weighed equally, and hence for me not just Reach but titles like MW2 would lose a point right away on the SP.

As one review I read said, if you love the MP only or that's your focus.  Almost perfect.  If you love SP only or that's your focus your going to be a bit dissapointed and find merely a good game.

Arguing about a Meta of 93 is hilarious though, really.  Given the obvious comparison to Uncharted 2 I'd said the clear focus isn't so much Halo 3 scoring higher but Uncharted 2, the PS3s flagship critical darling (or one of them) scored more on average.

One other thing, I also get the impression from most reviews that a title featuring Master Chief and a more Halo 1/2/3 like campaign, vs what is a more ODST like campaign, would have also garnered higher scores - interesting how the reviewers seem to feel such a difference there.

I'm guessing the first big non-Bungie Halo will be a full Halo 4 featuring the Master Chief.

that doesnt take more than 2 minutes :)

I agree reviews are broken.  But it is not because Halo:Reach is scored too low.  This game could be total garbage and it would still get a meta score in the 90's on hype alone.  A lot of reviews are biased, unbalanced and in some cases I'm sure someone receives benefits for favorable reviews.  There are some reviews that are fair and informative, but you really have to look at the reviews to find one.