Well there are some people who only play Halo for the SP campaign, and from that perspective it possibly deserves to be ripped almost as much as The Order. Though I would say The Order has gameplay flaws that do not exist in Halo, so Halo is unlikely to deserve to be ripped for gameplay. But still, I think there is a place for the voices of the SP-only enthusiasts to be heard. MP value is only of value if you use it. The MP part of games pretty much never get a look in from me, so I always judge the worth of a game solely on the SP content. 

I don't remember what his Destiny score was, but by all accounts his severe disappointment in Destiny seems like it should have attracted a lower score than he gave for Halo 5.

In the end people need to treat Angry Joe as an entertainment channel that can give people a bit of a steer on whether or not a game is good, not a review channel. Of the games he's played that I have also played I have to say I largely agree with where he lands in terms of detailed analysis and critique. The score he gives is only of curiosity value, as I tend to score games generally lower than reviewers who like a game to the same level I do. I wish I could play Halo 5 to be able to offer my own personal view of the SP campaign. But unless it comes to PC there is no way I ever will.

I'd like to give Halo CE a go. How do I get that on PC? My son has the MP only part on his laptop but that's no good to me. 

Can't take Angry Joe seriously anymore after his whole Nintendo BS. He's solely in it for the money with his emotionally charged BS rants.

He's obviously going to pick apart certain things and blast them on that, ie) no splitscreen which most people knew about and microtransactions, both will yield good viewership.

Edit: I hope he bitches about microtransactions in Uncharted 4, and Tomb Raider as well.... Oh wait, of course he will. 

I don't recall any of these games having cliff hanger endings. AFAIK they all told complete stories with no unresoved threads. What ME and TLOU did was give us a world / galaxy we want to see again. But for God of War the end did not really beg any kind of continuation, at least not in my opinion. Still, nothing inherently wrong with a cliff hanger. The question is whether the game was openly promoted as the start of a new trilogy. I have no idea on that count. If it was openly promoted as a new trilogy then there is no basis for complaining about a cliff hanger. If it was not openly promoted as a trilogy then I can understand some annoyance, but again once you realise it's intended as a trilogy continuing to complain seems a bit petty.

Actually I wish more people would write games with definite plans for a multi-game story, rather than a let's see how this game goes and then we can think of working out how to tell multiple stories with good cohesion between the games. In that respect more cliff hangers are desireable as that means the developer has a longer story already planned out, which is much better from the perspective of video games as a story-telling art.

Mass Effect ends with the reapers still a threat, as does Mass Effect 2. God of War II ends with Kratos riding on the back of a titan climbing Mount Olympus, the first level of God of War III. Gears ends with a speech of the Locust continuing their war. Hence, all the games I mentioned clearly leave a window open for a sequel.

I don't want to get into the details of Halo 5, but its not much different than other series intended to have sequels. The threat still exist, they merely won a battle.

I am probably more in agreement with Puggsly in that Halo 5 had a conclusion but if you really was paying attention you knew this was not going to be a completion to the story arch.  Maybe it just me but after hearing about this big cliff hanger then finishing the game, I was like ok expected.

I feel like this being a trilogy was discussed around the launch of 4. I think a lot of people coming into Halo 5 were aware of this.

I guess the line of cliffhanger gets a little hazy with something like TLoU. But I'm gonna assume the sequel will pick up after that. It was designed to be a series.

Why people so mad about Joe, he just give his opinion, and most of people like it, if you don't like it, i think it's better to avoid any thread talking about his review.

But maybe he has a point for a person who love Halo from the beginning of his gaming history, he feel that the games that he loves most is different, maybe it's the same like every other Final Fantasy fan out there who love playing FF series with turn based battle rather then having real time action battle.

I think the problem is, Halo is the biggest thing for Xbox, there are so focusing into Halo, if the title is not accepted anymore from a certain fans (peoples like Joe) it will affecting their consoles brand, like people saying Xbox is a Halo console. Microsoft need to stop this kind of habit, maybe give a rest for Halo and investing on other title ( i am not saying they didn't) but they need to invest heavily (marketing, etc) not just investing. I am afraid gears of war will seeing the same thing with Halo. I am not saying both title is flaw, but maybe they need to give a time for people to miss them, and when they miss Halo and Gears of War, people will love them more. Of course it's just my opinion, any one can agree or not.

calling BS

Lets think about this for one moment.  Is Joe any different from any other gamer that loved the first game but did not like the second or loved the 3rd but did not love the 4th.  In other words, in long running series, you will always have people who loved one game in a series over another and its to be expected.  A reviewer is no different from your average Joe (pun intended) when taking their personal opinion of a game.  So is there a big deal that Angry Joe has issues with Halo 5.  Nope, because he would have had issues no matter what.

Hollygamer (40 minutes ago)

"he just give his opinion, and most of people like it"