Support NeoGAF

[MarshMellow96]

So wait, you're saying that in the grand scheme of things, certain games get an unfair advantage over others when it comes to reviews simply because of what they are and not because of their actual merits?

I see what you did there.. Meh, I wasn't butthurt about it at all. It is somewhat hypocritical, but it doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. No ones going to lose sleep over it...

 

[DancingJesus]

I see what you did there.. Meh, I wasn't butthurt about it at all. It is somewhat hypocritical, but it doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things. No ones going to lose sleep over it...

Precisely. That's all I was trying to point out.

 

[see5harp]

Yeah, because the amateurish enthusiast press (emphasis on the word enthusiast) has nothing to do with how seriously games are taken.

Do you really think the general public cares about how a game is balanced or whether or not you could customize codpieces in a campaign? There are plenty of good writers in the business if you want that type of coverage. The same simple fact errors occur daily on NPR, The New York Times, etc. Fact checking and gaming writing has nothing to do with why the medium of gaming isn't at the same level of acceptance as film or music.

 

[Monocle]

Bungie just shot themselves in the foot.

I don't know how much the rest of you know about the Halo series (I'm an expert), but perfect review scores are a huge part of it. It's not like it is with Half-Life where you can expect the latest game to be good even if it gets a few 8s. If a new Halo game earns anything less than a 10, it means Bungie has brought shame to themselves, and the only way to get rid of that shame is repentance.

What this means is the gaming public, after hearing about this, is not going to want to purchase Halo: Reach, nor will they purchase any of 343's future Halo games. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but Bungie has alienated an entire market by failing to make a perfect game.

Bungie, publicly apologize and convince Microsoft to bury the Halo series or you can kiss your business goodbye.

 

[DancingJesus]

Bungie just shot themselves in the foot.

I don't know how much the rest of you know about the Halo series (I'm an expert), but perfect review scores are a huge part of it. It's not like it is with Half-Life where you can expect the latest game to be good even if it gets a few 8s. If a new Halo game earns anything less than a 10, it means Bungie has brought shame to themselves, and the only way to get rid of that shame is repentance.

What this means is the gaming public, after hearing about this, is not going to want to purchase Halo: Reach, nor will they purchase any of 343's future Halo games. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but Bungie has alienated an entire market by failing to make a perfect game.

Bungie, publicly apologize and convince Microsoft to bury the Halo series or you can kiss your business goodbye.

Well done. :lol

Three more reviews to add to the lot.

Strategy Informer 9

http://www.strategyinformer.com/xbox360/haloreach/1206/review.html

Mondo Xbox 9.4

http://www.mondoxbox.com/recensione/1083/halo-reach.html

GameBlog.fr 10

http://www.gameblog.fr/test_675_halo-reach-xbox-360

Putting these through Google translator gets some funny results.

 

[equiprimordial]

It's interesting that so few reviews mention the changes that drew the most attention in the beta such as bloom. I found the new feel of the weapons to be a pretty brilliant refresh by Bungie.

 

[JdFoX187]

Clearly you don't understand journalism. "Video Game Journalism" is a highly glorified opinions section. It's Rotten Tomatoes. It's Ebert-lite. It is not "news" coverage. If it were news coverage than the entire industry would be covered and not the big boys. There is no Local News section for these "journalists."

The internet, as itself, is still being widely discussed in Journalism. Does blog coverage count as Journalism? Do forums such as NeoGAF count as Journalism? Are the standards different, do the sway on a pendulum and align where they fall?

Fuck dude, I doubt half these guys have the AP style book on their desk.

MAYBE THEY DO!

I'm a little late to this whole thing -- having just read through the "controversy" concocted by someone over a minor, semantical mistake, but I agree whole heartedly with this post. "Video game journalism" is the Rotten Tomatoes, Ebert, whatever of the video game industry. Even movie publications like Entertainment Weekly are a step up. But lambasting someone over one minor mistake is fool-hearted, and reeks of an overzealous fan getting angry at a mistake. He wasn't right, but he wasn't necessarily wrong either. And as someone who actually is a journalist at a newspaper, he would not get fired over something like that, unless for some reason he absolutely pissed off the publisher or an advertiser. But I really doubt anyone, outside of the most rabid fans, would even make the delineation between the two.

 

[RSB]

The Giant Bomb Review is not surprising at all. Anybody remembers that video they posted during the beta? It was clear they were too used to the CoD games, to the point they barely understood the basic gameplay (let's spray this Assault Rifle thing from across the map, surely I'll get a kill using only a couple of bullets, and with a bit a bit of luck I'll even get a headshot, yay!!!) It was obvious they weren't going to love the game, so an 8 is actually pretty good considering their CoD bias.

The Gametrailers review is a bit more surprising, especially considering they gave Halo 3 a 9.8 in 2007. The person doing the review doesn't seem to understand the gameplay mechanics very well (for example, they complain about the assassinations, saying they take too long) and that comment about the feature set not being that special because Halo 3 had most of them 3 years ago is quite ridiculous too (yeah, because since then every other FPS has had them all, right? LOL)

So yeah, it would be nice if all the reviews came from people that were at least somewhat familiar with the Halo games and their mechanics, with no preconceived bias against them, but hey, the world is not perfect.

Gametrailers is one of the few sites I check for reviews. I was confused about the assassination complaint, too. It wasn't even a complaint, really, just a remark. "They took too long so we didn't usually use them." Alright. That's cool, but why bring it up as a point? It's a risk v reward mechanic, it's like built in corpse humping. Here, I got you, howdoyalikethat. It's a built in tool for rubbing in your kill.

Yeah, Gametrailers is one of my favorite sites for reviews too, and the review itself is quite good overall, but those two comments, and the score (in comparison to Halo 3) were kinda strange.

Bye

 

[Red]

The Giant Bomb Review is not surprising at all. Anybody remembers that video they posted during the beta? It was clear they were too used to the CoD games, to the point they barely understood the basic gameplay (let's spray this Assault Rifle thing from across the map, surely I'll get a kill using only a couple of bullets, and with a bit a bit of luck I'll even get a headshot, yay!!!) It was obvious they weren't going to love the game, so an 8 is actually pretty good considering their CoD bias.

The Gametrailers review is a bit more surprising, especially considering they gave Halo 3 a 9.8 in 2007. The person doing the review doesn't seem to understand the gameplay mechanics very well (for example, they complain about the assassinations, saying they take too long) and that comment about the feature set not being that special because Halo 3 had most of them 3 years ago is quite ridiculous too (yeah, because since then every other FPS has had them all, right? LOL)

So yeah, it would be nice if all the reviews came from people that were at least somewhat familiar with the Halo games and their mechanics, with no preconceived bias against them, but hey, the world is not perfect.

Bye

Gametrailers is one of the few sites I check for reviews. I was confused about the assassination complaint, too. It wasn't even a complaint, really, just a remark. "They took too long so we didn't usually use them." Alright. That's cool, but why bring it up as a point? It's a risk v reward mechanic, it's like built in corpse humping. Here, I got you, howdoyalikethat. It's a built in tool for rubbing in your kill. You don't have to use it, it's given to you as an option. Obviously they understood that, but the way it is phrased makes it seem like a negative when in fact it is simply an additional Thing You Can Do Should You Feel So Inclined.

 

[f0rk]

Well don't review it then. Or have someone else on the team do it instead. This happens for different play style games. Be it a RTS, Fighting or Sports game.

Giant Bomb did do this with the latest Madden. There is a huge difference between having a preference within a genre and not caring about one at all.

Regardless, this discussion proves why scoring systems are flawed. Bring on more articles like Shack New's and Arstechnica.

It's funny, I think Starcraft II faced the same challenges Reach did, in that it was a refinement and elaboration on a proven forumla. The lower reviews for that game criticized it for similar aspects. I don't mind this at all, as long as this is consistent throughout the rest of the reviews on the publication's site.

If you're one of those [Halo] fans, you should have this game.

The particular review we are discussing gave Reach a 4/5 compared to a 5/5 for MW2 because of personal preference. But the review text (the most important part) clearly highlights who will love (not just enjoy) this game. There really is no problem.
The Starcraft 2 example is no different, the lower review scores probably didn't particularly love the original RTS mechanics of the original either.

 

[LCfiner]

That isn't why he is hypocritical, it's that he is criticizing the game for being overly familiar in Halo, yet he doesn't do the same in the recent Modern Warfare (when that game was largely unchanged).

But he isn’t criticizing it for being overly familiar. he’s just saying that the gameplay is very similar to the previous games (and it is) and that, in his opinion, is worthy of a 4 star review. If the game was radically different from previous halo games, he’d have to mention that instead.

he was very clear that the things added to multiplayer like armour abilities and the matchmaking in firefight and campaign are great things that add value to the previous halo experience.

essentially, you’re saying he’s hypocritical because he, personally, doesn’t enjoy halo’s slower pace and longer engagement times as much as CoD.

I would call him hypocritical if he didn’t enjoy those things and then gave the game a 5 star review.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Reach FTW.

 

[Darklord]

The Giant Bomb Review is not surprising at all. Anybody remembers that video they posted during the beta? It was clear they were too used to the CoD games, to the point they barely understood the basic gameplay (let's spray this Assault Rifle thing from across the map, surely I'll get a kill using only a couple of bullets, and with a bit a bit of luck I'll even get a headshot, yay!!!) It was obvious they weren't going to love the game, so an 8 is actually pretty good considering their CoD bias.

http://www.giantbomb.com/call-of-duty-world-at-war/61-20777/

Total bias. Look how high that score is compared to Reach. It must be all the reviewers giving them 4 stars and 9.3 that are OBVIOUSLY bias towards Call of Duty, right? Couldn't be you're the bias one.

 

[RSB]

http://www.giantbomb.com/call-of-duty-world-at-war/61-20777/

Total bias. Look how high that score is compared to Reach. It must be all the reviewers giving them 4 stars and 9.3 that are OBVIOUSLY bias towards Call of Duty, right? Couldn't be you're the bias one.

Considering the "real CoD fans" seem to enjoy the IW games much more than the Treyarch games... yeah, the bias is obvious. And yeah, I have a bias too (I prefer Halo to CoD, BY FAR) but I don't get paid to do "professional" reviews, like those guys, so yeah...

And that comment about the bias was not directed to the Gametrailers review (they sure don't seem to have a pro-CoD or anti-Halo bias) but to the Giant Bomb review in particular, and to some of the reviews in general (I've already seen quite a few mentioning the "it's still Halo" in the "Cons" section of the review)

Bye

 

[Vicetrailia]

According go Gametrailers the SP is nothing special. They said that the story was good, but they also said that Halo 3 had a good story so there is a credibility issue there with me.

On the fence, doubt I'll bite unless I decide to get XBL back.

 

[RefigeKru]

I don't know what the current problem is anymore.

 

[Shake Appeal]

It's interesting that so few reviews mention the changes that drew the most attention in the beta such as bloom. I found the new feel of the weapons to be a pretty brilliant refresh by Bungie.

I would bet a healthy sum of money that fewer than the three-quarters of journalists who reviewed this game didn't realize the aiming mechanic had changed.

 

[flyinpiranha]

Nah, just hit a nerve is all.

Like I said, I'm really passionate about games, and everything game related.


.

You love too much Shogun!

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

You love too much Shogun!

Indeed. :lol

 

[Mr Nightman]

So pumped for reach, going to have a xbox live party with 3-4 360's and 1 vizio 42 incher, Acer 21.5 inch monitor and a cheap little dell 15 inch lcd that I bought on craigslist today for $15 :lol

 

[DancingJesus]

But he isn’t criticizing it for being overly familiar. he’s just saying that the gameplay is very similar to the previous games (and it is) and that, in his opinion, is worthy of a 4 star review. If the game was radically different from previous halo games, he’d have to mention that instead.

he was very clear that the things added to multiplayer like armour abilities and the matchmaking in firefight and campaign are great things that add value to the previous halo experience.

essentially, you’re saying he’s hypocritical because he, personally, doesn’t enjoy halo’s slower pace and longer engagement times as much as CoD.

I would call him hypocritical if he didn’t enjoy those things and then gave the game a 5 star review.

Isn't that one in the same? The main reason I don't see it as - he just doesn't enjoy that style of play is that he gave Halo 3 at Gamespot a 9.5

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/act...vert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review

From the GiantBomb review:

"While I do feel that the formula has worn thin in a few spots, Reach feels like a love letter from the developer to its fans. If you're one of those fans, you should have this game."

Perfectly reasonable quote, but it adresses that his main complaint with game is that it seems overly familiar, which in turn relates to the COD point. No sour grapes or anything, just wanted to set the record straight from my side.

According go Gametrailers the SP is nothing special. They said that the story was good, but they also said that Halo 3 had a good story so there is a credibility issue there with me.

On the fence, doubt I'll bite unless I decide to get XBL back.

Please read the OP for thoughts on the single-player. I think it may help you get a clearer idea of what you want to do. If anything, give it a rent.

 

[LCfiner]

Isn't that one in the same? The main reason I don't see it as - he just doesn't enjoy that style of play is that he gave Halo 3 at Gamespot a 9.5

http://www.gamespot.com/xbox360/act...vert&om_clk=gssummary&tag=summary;read-review

From the GiantBomb review:

"While I do feel that the formula has worn thin in a few spots, Reach feels like a love letter from the developer to its fans. If you're one of those fans, you should have this game."

Perfectly reasonable quote, but it adresses that his main complaint with game is that it seems overly familiar, which in turn relates to the COD point.

I guess the difference in our interpretations is that I don’t think that saying the game is similar to previous Halo games is why the game got a 4 from him.

he mentioned it, he gave his opinion about it, but it never felt like that particular reason is why the game got a 4 instead of a 5. instead, I felt it was his own personal reaction to the gameplay that resulted in the score.

that’s why I’m saying I don’t think there’s anything hypocritical with the review compared to the MW2 review (and I’ll repeat that I completely disagree with his opinion of MW2).

 

[DancingJesus]

I guess the difference in our interpretations is that I don’t think that saying the game is similar to previous Halo games is why the game got a 4 from him.

he mentioned it, he gave his opinion about it, but it never felt like that particular reason is why the game got a 4 instead of a 5. instead, I felt it was his own personal reaction to the gameplay that resulted in the score.

that’s why I’m saying I don’t think there’s anything hypocritical with the review compared to the MW2 review (and I’ll repeat that I completely disagree with his opinion of MW2).

Alrighty, that's cool.

 

[Ramirez]

Exactly. MW2 is more or less MW, yet it's super amazingly better. Reach arguably shakes things up more but is apparently too much like Halo 3.

Dumbest post ever on NeoGAF? Probably.

Maybe I read that out of context, I dunno.

 

[RedRedSuit]

Dumbest post ever on NeoGAF? Probably.

Maybe I read that out of context, I dunno.

Yes, what you did was almost a textbook definition of reading something out of context.

 

[bhlaab]

A Living Painting: There are points in Halo: Reach when the game seems to escape the confines of graphic animation, transcending the medium to become moving set pieces that look more like a pulsing Baroque painting than a video game. The blending of rich colors and dramatic presentation, cued to important moments, memorable movements in Halo: Reach is pitch perfect, used just enough to help burn the game's high points into your conscience.

 

[Shurs]

A Living Painting: There are points in Halo: Reach when the game seems to escape the confines of graphic animation, transcending the medium to become moving set pieces that look more like a pulsing Baroque painting than a video game. The blending of rich colors and dramatic presentation, cued to important moments, memorable movements in Halo: Reach is pitch perfect, used just enough to help burn the game's high points into your conscience.

Link please?

 

[DaBuddaDa]

To anyone who ever complains about review scores for any game: imagine said game got perfect 10s across the board from every single reviewer. What then? How would that make you feel?

...

Go play some vidya games.

 

[DancingJesus]

Link please?

I thought he made it up himself after the Baroque painting bit but it's actually a line from the Kotaku AU review. :lol

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2010/09/halo-reach-review-a-beautiful-beginning-for-a-wonderful-end/

 

[Flavius]

Link please?

shitaku, of course

EDIT: Just that whore working for his clicks...nothing new here...dude just does not give a fuck.

 

[BrLvgThrChmstry]

A Living Painting: There are points in Halo: Reach when the game seems to escape the confines of graphic animation, transcending the medium to become moving set pieces that look more like a pulsing Baroque painting than a video game. The blending of rich colors and dramatic presentation, cued to important moments, memorable movements in Halo: Reach is pitch perfect, used just enough to help burn the game's high points into your conscience.

...not entirely sure what to think about this one. Cool, I guess.

 

[DaBuddaDa]

...not entirely sure what to think about this one. Cool, I guess.

I think he got "Rez HD" and "Halo: Reach" mixed up.

 

[zero margin]

Don't worry, you got my avatar for that.

Your avatar is hurting because of the lack of ass shake. :lol

 

[GillianSeed79]

Who cares that the books have a good story? That is no excuse for the subpar, borderline nonexistent, character development in the games. The arbiter was the only well developed character in the entire trilogy. I think this is the reason the movie never took shape. The hero (master chief) is a nobody. Games may work like that, but film requires character development.

This is kind of the reason I never “got” the Halo series. I remember reading launch day stories for Halo 3 describing it as this generation's Star Wars. Now this wasn't hyperbole (god I hate that word) from the enthusiast press, but respected press outlets like the Associated Press. I actually did own an Xbox late in its life, but never got around to playing Halo being a broke college student. Before I bought Halo 3 I decided to play the first 2 beforehand. It just seemed like there was this rich universe that the games barely scratch the surface of. Whenever I hear Halo fans wax nostalgic about the Spartan program and how MC became who he was I just am like huh? where did they explain all this? Then I remember there's comic books, novels and even that anime movie that came out.

But who am I kidding? Halo is all about MP. To be fair Halo 3 was my first real online mp experience. Being a noob certainly didn't help I guess and shit like bunny hopping and one-hit melee kills kind of left a sour taste in my mouth.

 

[Kimosabae]

Link please?

That's from the Kotaku review.

Interesting that he quoted that text, as I glazed my eyes over that paragraph after reading the first sentence, myself. I couldn't even stomach it.

*edit*

Wow, beaten mercilessly.

 

[Shaka]

The Giant Bomb Review is not surprising at all. Anybody remembers that video they posted during the beta? It was clear they were too used to the CoD games, to the point they barely understood the basic gameplay (let's spray this Assault Rifle thing from across the map, surely I'll get a kill using only a couple of bullets, and with a bit a bit of luck I'll even get a headshot, yay!!!) It was obvious they weren't going to love the game, so an 8 is actually pretty good considering their CoD bias.

The Gametrailers review is a bit more surprising, especially considering they gave Halo 3 a 9.8 in 2007. The person doing the review doesn't seem to understand the gameplay mechanics very well (for example, they complain about the assassinations, saying they take too long) and that comment about the feature set not being that special because Halo 3 had most of them 3 years ago is quite ridiculous too (yeah, because since then every other FPS has had them all, right? LOL)

So yeah, it would be nice if all the reviews came from people that were at least somewhat familiar with the Halo games and their mechanics, with no preconceived bias against them, but hey, the world is not perfect.


Yeah, Gametrailers is one of my favorite sites for reviews too, and the review itself is quite good overall, but those two comments, and the score (in comparison to Halo 3) were kinda strange.

Bye

Best.Review.Thread.Ever.

A Living Painting: There are points in Halo: Reach when the game seems to escape the confines of graphic animation, transcending the medium to become moving set pieces that look more like a pulsing Baroque painting than a video game. The blending of rich colors and dramatic presentation, cued to important moments, memorable movements in Halo: Reach is pitch perfect, used just enough to help burn the game's high points into your conscience.

Holy shit! :lol

 

[sharath_kumar]

Does this have "oscar" winning story ?

 

[Mooreberg]

Does this have "oscar" winning story ?

People keep saying this like it actually means anything anymore. Juno won an Oscar for its writing. THE BAR HAS BEEN LOWERED.

 

[Penguin]

So yeah, it would be nice if all the reviews came from people that were at least somewhat familiar with the Halo games and their mechanics, with no preconceived bias against them, but hey, the world is not perfect.

See, I never get this.
You are basically asking for the game to only be reviewed by Halo fans, but how could they have no preconceived bias against the series?

 

[RedRedSuit]

That's from the Kotaku review.

Interesting that he quoted that text, as I glazed my eyes over that paragraph after reading the first sentence, myself. I couldn't even stomach it.

*edit*

Wow, beaten mercilessly.

Is it the same guy who said Alan Wake "transcends the medium"? :lol

Review threads are too much fun.

EDIT: Hey, what do you know... it totally IS the same guy. Good ol' Crecente.

 

[Kimosabae]

See, I never get this.
You are basically asking for the game to only be reviewed by Halo fans, but how could they have no preconceived bias against the series?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum

Gamers annoy me so much.

Opinions: How the fuck do they work???

 

[wizword]

A Living Painting: There are points in Halo: Reach when the game seems to escape the confines of graphic animation, transcending the medium to become moving set pieces that look more like a pulsing Baroque painting than a video game. The blending of rich colors and dramatic presentation, cued to important moments, memorable movements in Halo: Reach is pitch perfect, used just enough to help burn the game's high points into your conscience.

You wonder why I ignore the positive reviews. That is the dumbest comment I've ever read. It doesn't make sense from what I know of art which is basically audio guide tours in museums.

 

[Kimosabae]

You wonder why I ignore the positive reviews. That is the dumbest comment I've ever read. It doesn't make sense from what I know of art which is basically audio guide tours in museums.

I've been witnessing the game on a regular basis via kids playing a DLd copy on campus. The game's visually in line with every other Halo game since the first sequel - serviceable. Cutscenes may be a different story, but the text fails to qualify.

And before Im declared a hater, I have the game pre-ordered through Amazon.

 

[Shaka]

See, I never get this.
You are basically asking for the game to only be reviewed by Halo fans, but how could they have no preconceived bias against the series?

Only the chosen ones truly 'get' the magical GOD jizz that is Halo. No lowly pleb is fit to give it an arbitrary score. (Unless it's over 9)

I've been witnessing the game on a regular basis via kids playing a DLd copy on campus. The game's visually in line with every other Halo game since the first sequel - serviceable. Cutscenes may be a different story, but the text fails to qualify.

And before Im declared a hater, I have the game pre-ordered through Amazon.

I have to disagree with you there, I think it looks great visually. A marked improvement over the visual shitfest Halo 3.

 

[-tetsuo-]

One thing that has bothered me about some of the reviews particularly GiantBomb's, is that his main complaint of the game is that it is essentially more Halo, yet he gives Modern Warfare 2 (A game that is next to identical to the first, but somehow slightly worse) a higher score. Seems slightly hypocritical, especially considering Reach added and changed much more...

If you are going to knock a game for being more of the same, do it across the board.

This is basically the 5th Halo. That was the 2nd Modern Warfare. That said, I'm sure I'll like Reach more than MW2.

A Living Painting: There are points in Halo: Reach when the game seems to escape the confines of graphic animation, transcending the medium to become moving set pieces that look more like a pulsing Baroque painting than a video game. The blending of rich colors and dramatic presentation, cued to important moments, memorable movements in Halo: Reach is pitch perfect, used just enough to help burn the game's high points into your conscience.

=/

 

[jambo]

Games.On.Net Review 4/5

http://games.on.net/article/10170/ber_ber_ber_Review_Halo_Reach

 

[tak]

Argh! Someone doesn't agree with me about my opinion!

 

[stupei]

So is the GT video review as spoilery as they usually are or nothing major and awesome spoiled? I'm still without the game and looking for something to tide me over. :lol

 

[watership]

Two more reviews that I *think* haven't been posted before.

http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/xbox/games/161974.Halo-Reach/reviews/135634.Halo-Reach/

http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/840592-games-review-halo-reach-restarts-the-fight

 

[The Lamonster]

Bungie just shot themselves in the foot.

I don't know how much the rest of you know about the Halo series (I'm an expert), but perfect review scores are a huge part of it. It's not like it is with Half-Life where you can expect the latest game to be good even if it gets a few 8s. If a new Halo game earns anything less than a 10, it means Bungie has brought shame to themselves, and the only way to get rid of that shame is repentance.

What this means is the gaming public, after hearing about this, is not going to want to purchase Halo: Reach, nor will they purchase any of 343's future Halo games. This is HUGE. You can laugh all you want, but Bungie has alienated an entire market by failing to make a perfect game.

Bungie, publicly apologize and convince Microsoft to bury the Halo series or you can kiss your business goodbye.

bravo, sir.