Support NeoGAF

[Futureman]

Halo 4 is probably already being developed as a launch title for the NextBox 720 or whatever they're gonna call it.

But not by Bungie? They are done with Halo?

 

[anonnumber6]

But not by Bungie? They are done with Halo?

Halo Reach is their last Halo game.

343 Industries will now develop the Halo series.

 

[Red]

If Kotaku's known for one thing, it's pulling their punches and giving Halo games glowing praise. Wait, that's two things. Shit.

"... designed and programmed for one purpose alone - search and destroy."

Even the negative reviews are hyping me for the game (still waiting on UPS!). Main complaint seems to be "more of the same," but frankly, when it comes to Halo, that's exactly what I want.

 

[SupaNaab]

Growing up in Canada watching cartoons on YTV really late and then suddenly these really god awful british shows would come on tv. The weird blurring I see in Reach reminds me of these euro-tv shows. It sounds weird but when I hear the aussie accent coming from the heavygunner guy as that blur kicks in full gear I can't help but feel like Im watching a poor quality PAL TV Show.

 

[Kimosabae]

To be fair I've always loved Halo's gameplay mechanics, but those mechanics were always wrapped in subpar graphics (with jaggies), weak audio (music is awesome though), horrid faces, and hand-done animations that look outdated on the 360 compared to the competition.

ALL of that has been fixed this time around from what I've seen and experienced. For once (on the 360) the look and feel is just as good as the game design.

I really don't know what the fuck happened, here. Halo: CE's audio was, and still is, on another level. Every game after that has been seriously subpar IMO. The physics engine I understand since it wasn't solely Bungie's, but concussion audio in particular has left me feeling empty since the first game.

Well, that and the melee animations. Why is it the first game still has the most quality melee animations? So many subtle touches that added so much have been lost. It almost seems like the franchise has gotten too large and too unwieldy for them to focus on such things.

I'm more than likely a little late on this, but you are taking this way too seriously. Videogame journalism will never be 'real journalism' simply because of the subject matter. Videogames are a leisure activity. The material that is written about them be it previews, video examinations, demo evaluations, review, etc don't have to be meticulously fact checked simply because the subject matter isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things. If you don't understand the difference between the writers and the content that is written for IGN or an outlet that covers socially substantive material such as the Economist then I don't know what to tell you.

Like I've stated before; game journalism is what it is largely due to the audience. It won't improve until the audience expects more. The audience probably won't expect more until gaming starts to truly penetrate the mainstream consciousness on a level that makes it seem more socially relevant, and said audience expands beyond the now.

 

[Lakitu]

Halo Reach is their last Halo game.

343 Industries will now develop the Halo series.

Thought someone from 343 mentioned that their next title in development would be for the 360.

I hope 343 can do Bungie justice. It's big shoes to fill.

 

[Future PhaZe]

I've seen a couple of posts that seem to brush the campaign aside.

To me its easily the best in the series in that regard.

 

[Lakitu]

I've seen a couple of posts that seem to brush the campaign aside.

To me its easily the best in the series in that regard.

It's a beautiful campaign. Each level is uniquely designed with big open environments. It's the Halo campaign I've been waiting for.

Spoiler

New Alexandria is too amazing. I just flew around the city to see where I could land and I could land anywhere. I went and landed on a bridge. So good.

 

[Kimosabae]

Only on mission 2, but the art design is excellent in the campaign. The game's tone in general is outstanding (visually and overall).

It's clear Bungie's been paying at least some attention to Infinity Ward regarding this area.

 

[Warm Machine]

Really, what is with that Game Shark C review?

 

[Mafro]

Edge 9 http://www.next-gen.biz/features/halo-reach-review

 

[seady]

To be fair I've always loved Halo's gameplay mechanics, but those mechanics were always wrapped in subpar graphics (with jaggies), weak audio (music is awesome though), horrid faces, and hand-done animations that look outdated on the 360 compared to the competition.

ALL of that has been fixed this time around from what I've seen and experienced. For once (on the 360) the look and feel is just as good as the game design.

Agree. I remember at one point Halo set the bar for audio and graphics back on console. But this generation doesn't look so hot.

I think they already get pass the other developers and realize they don't need flashy presentation to excel. Just like Nintendo, when one reaches a certain point in the industry, you don't need the skin to wow people and just focus on gameplay.

 

[_Xenon_]

Best campaign since HALO:CE for sure. But did anybody notice the slow down during cutscenes or rainy stages? That's quite a disappointment and I doubt the campaign is always running on 30fps.

 

[StuBurns]

Best campaign since HALO:CE for sure. But did anybody notice the slow down during cutscenes or rainy stages? That's quite a disappointment and I doubt the campaign is always running on 30fps.

There was notably performance issues throughout. The game actually isn't as polished as I expected, spawning in places you can't get out of, missing geometry bugs, notable pop-in, framerate issues, etc. Still, utterly incredible though.

 

[Feindflug]

Really, what is with that Game Shark C review?

I just saw that 5/10. :lol

 

[Lkr]

I just saw that 5/10. :lol

Halo: Reach means getting to select your equipment before you spawn. Period. End of sentence. Full stop. Nuff said. Sixty bucks, ladies and gentlemen. Don't put your wallet back too deep in your pocket, because some DLC will be along shortly. Don't forget to install and register for Halo Waypoint to get your free armor bits!

:lol :lol :lol

Remember when I said Halo: Reach isn't terrible? Okay, I lied a little bit. Because the campaign is terrible. It's Bungie's trademark oh-so-serious storytelling, squeezed like caulk into the gaps between the same old missions they've been making for ten years. There is not a shred of originality in the entire thing, much less anything approaching an interesting character or memorable plot point. The alien attack on Reach is supposedly an important moment in the Halo universe. But from playing the game, you'd never know it's anything other than just another space marine running around pressing various buttons. Sometimes the space marine has other space marines tagging along, either as cannon fodder or as invulnerable buddies waiting for their scripted deaths. Reach's dull story train jumps the rails when it goes into orbit, forcing you to fly an uninspired space combat game instead of playing Halo.

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol


I didn't even know Gameshark was still around, but now I think they are trying to just get some attention because they don't get any views(once again, this company is still in business?)

 

[Kimosabae]

I find little to disagree with regarding the quoted bits of that Gameshark review. His perspective just seems to be that of a cynic who generally isn't a fan of the Halo series.

*shrug*

I'm not going sit and pretend like Reach has reinvented the wheel even within the context of the franchise. It's just a more refined wheel for those already happy with the ride. I can see why people would be down on that.

And this whole armor upgrade thing really is contrived IMO.

 

[Pimpbaa]

I find little to disagree with regarding the quoted bits of that Gameshark review. His perspective just seems to be that of a cynic who generally isn't a fan of the Halo series.

Then why chose him to review the game? That's like getting someone who hates sports games to review the latest Madden or something. Also, anyway who is a cynic shouldn't be a reviewer in the first place.

 

[Kimosabae]

Then why chose him to review the game? That's like getting someone who hates sports games to review the latest Madden or something. Also, anyway who is a cynic shouldn't be a reviewer in the first place.

If you only want to hear the opinions of those with even the slightest disposition towards Halo - why are you minding reviews at all?

Anyways, your comparison is falsifiable. You're suggesting the reviewer hates shooters in general, because they gave a middling score to Halo. Your analogy lacks integrity unless you can demonstrate the writer has a strong bias against shooters.

 

[Vigilant Walrus]

Edge 9 http://www.next-gen.biz/features/halo-reach-review

:MIND BLOWN:

 

[Pimpbaa]

If you only want to hear the opinions of those with even the slightest disposition towards Halo - why are you minding reviews at all?

Anyways, your comparison is falsifiable. You're suggesting the reviewer hates shooters in general, because they gave a middling score to Halo. Your analogy lacks integrity unless you can demonstrate the writer has a strong bias against shooters.

You suggested he doesn't like the halo series. A person who supposedly dislike the halo series should not be reviewing any games in the series.

 

[StuBurns]

You suggested he doesn't like the halo series. A person who supposedly dislike the halo series should not be reviewing any games in the series.

Why not? Of course people who don't like Halo can review Halo games.

 

[Pimpbaa]

Why not? Of course people who don't like Halo can review Halo games.

I already said why (like a person who doesn't like sports game reviewing madden). Just like I would be a bad person to review a Metal Gear Solid game, because I dislike the series. My review would be horribly biased and I would nitpick every small detail I don't like.

 

[Kimosabae]

You suggested he doesn't like the halo series. A person who supposedly dislike the halo series should not be reviewing any games in the series.

"Not a fan" does not imply "doesn't like". I'm "not a fan" of the CoD series, but I enjoyed MW2.

But let's roll with your own criteria. Fine; only fans of certain types of games get to review those games. Now what?

Malarky, that's what. You're exemplifying the audience I criticized on the last page. Part of the problem with game's journalism is that gamers don't want actual journalism. They like "enthusiast press" material that tickles their biases. You're not actually looking for reviews - you're looking for confirmation bias dressed in ornate language.

Your Presupposition (granted): A person reviews a game in a particular series of games they're not a fan of - so what? Is the problem his critique can't be free of bias? Or can't be free of your preference of bias?

I fail to see how someone's opinion is invalid just because there's a good chance he may not like the game. There's a reason that person does not like said type of game, and assuming they can articulate those reasons with clarity, his opinion proves insightful. Particularly to a group of people searching for means to broaden the market for those types of games.

There's no such thing as an unbiased opinion. The sooner you realize there's no such thing as objectivity, the better. You're giving too much credit to objectivity, which is as ethereal as the fog suffocating the most laudatory Kotaku fluff piece. When you're ready to appreciate the subjective experience - then and only then - will you find practical use in critiques.


*edit*

Maybe you should write a review of Halo: Reach? You can spot objectivity - you should be able to write an unbiased review, no?

 

[GaryD]

Fuck this is a great game. I didn't like Halo3 or ODST but this seems a big step forward. No where near as much backtracking and I don't seem to be getting lost any where near as much :lol

 

[watership]

I find little to disagree with regarding the quoted bits of that Gameshark review. His perspective just seems to be that of a cynic who generally isn't a fan of the Halo series.

*shrug*

I'm not going sit and pretend like Reach has reinvented the wheel even within the context of the franchise. It's just a more refined wheel for those already happy with the ride. I can see why people would be down on that.

And this whole armor upgrade thing really is contrived IMO.

You seem to be making it out to be that Bungie schemed to make armor upgrades appear to be more than they are. OR that they are poorly thought our and manufactured? What did you expect or were looking for?

 

[StuBurns]

I already said why (like a person who doesn't like sports game reviewing madden). Just like I would be a bad person to review a Metal Gear Solid game, because I dislike the series. My review would be horribly biased and I would nitpick every small detail I don't like.

Well firstly I think that's a really stupid opinion. Reviews are a subjective look at a video game, not an attempt at an objective evaluation of a product, so having 'bias' should make no difference.

And more importantly, that implies the reviewer shouldn't have any opinion on the game either way before playing it, so not only can no one who's played a Halo play it, you really need to find someone who hasn't been affected by hype, really someone who hasn't heard of Halo. Is that who you want writing reviews?

 

[Mastperf]

I find little to disagree with regarding the quoted bits of that Gameshark review. His perspective just seems to be that of a cynic who generally isn't a fan of the Halo series.

*shrug*

I'm not going sit and pretend like Reach has reinvented the wheel even within the context of the franchise. It's just a more refined wheel for those already happy with the ride. I can see why people would be down on that.

And this whole armor upgrade thing really is contrived IMO.

That's the problem. I'm not a fan of racing games so it would make absolutely no sense for me to review GT5 when it's released. If I did, I would probably have to say how much I hate it and how boring it is. People want to read reviews of games written by people who are actually fans of the series. I really don't need to know what some random Sony/ Nintendo/ PC fantard thinks of the new Halo.
If the guy didn't like Halo to begin with then maybe he should have reviewed something else instead of wasting his time.

I already said why (like a person who doesn't like sports game reviewing madden). Just like I would be a bad person to review a Metal Gear Solid game, because I dislike the series. My review would be horribly biased and I would nitpick every small detail I don't like.

I didn't see this before I typed my reply. I see I'm not the only one who finds it a little odd.

 

[StuBurns]

That's the problem. I'm not a fan of racing games so it would make absolutely no sense for me to review GT5 when it's released. If I did, I would probably have to say how much I hate it and how boring it is. People want to read reviews of games written by people who are actually fans of the series. I really don't need to know what some random Sony/ Nintendo/ PC fantard thinks of the new Halo.
If the guy didn't like Halo to begin with then maybe he should have reviewed something else instead of wasting his time.

So you just want reviews that validate your own opinions?

 

[watership]

That's the problem. I'm not a fan of racing games so it would make absolutely no sense for me to review GT5 when it's released. If I did, I would probably have to say how much I hate it and how boring it is. People want to read reviews of games written by people who are actually fans of the series. I really don't need to know what some random Sony/ Nintendo/ PC fantard thinks of the new Halo.
If the guy didn't like Halo to begin with then maybe he should have reviewed something else instead of wasting his time.

That's the mistake he makes too:

Halo: Reach means getting to select your equipment before you spawn. Period. End of sentence. Full stop. Nuff said. Sixty bucks, ladies and gentlemen. Don't put your wallet back too deep in your pocket, because some DLC will be along shortly. Don't forget to install and register for Halo Waypoint to get your free armor bits!

That's not just opinion, that's misinformation based on his distaste for this game. What if someone uninformed read his review? My father saw a report on local TV about Reach, and called me up to say sorry that the game I was looking forward to turned out so bad. This guy doesn't have to like the game to review it, but I think reviewers should be open minded. That review just sounded angry.

 

[Mastperf]

So you just want reviews that validate your own opinions?

No, but a review from someone who "gets" the series might be a little more helpful. Would someone who hates FPS be a good candidate to review the newest high-profile fps? I want the opinion of someone who's a fan of the series and is just as hyped as I am. We all go easy on our favorite franchises because we know they consist of more than the flaws they may have. I want someone who like me, can look past the flaws and see the big picture. You looked past the flaws earlier when you said..

There was notably performance issues throughout. The game actually isn't as polished as I expected, spawning in places you can't get out of, missing geometry bugs, notable pop-in, framerate issues, etc. Still, utterly incredible though.

That is what i want to see in a review, not some laundry lists of insignificant flaws that a fan could easily ignore.

 

[Absoludacrous]

Doesn't matter whether they "get" it or not. People who come into the game hating it before they even play it shouldn't review it, the same way that people who sleep on Halo bedsheets shouldn't review it either.

That review was written in his head before he ever picked up the controller.

So were some of the 10/10's.

Love game journalism.

 

[StuBurns]

No, but a review from someone who "gets" the series might be a little more helpful. Would someone who hates FPS be a good candidate to review the newest high-profile fps? I want the opinion of someone who's a fan of the series and is just as hyped as I am. We all go easy on our favorite franchises because we know they consist of more than the flaws they may have. I want someone who like me, can look past the flaws and see the big picture. You looked past the flaws earlier when you said..


That is what i want to see in a review, not some laundry lists of insignificant flaws that a fan could easily ignore.

I certainly want reviews that discuss the 'bigger picture', a lack of AA doesn't really mean anything to me, I don't care at all, I know some people might though.

I guess the issue is who is the review for? A Halo Reach review is not for the Halo fans, they are buying the game anyway, it's not for the people who hate the series, because they aren't going to be convinced by a good review, because that's all the series has ever had. So I guess it's for the people on the fence. Maybe they didn't have an Xbox last gen, maybe they play 3 but weren't a fan, skipped on ODST but are ready to give it another shot. I honestly don't know.

However, it's fairly rare a reviewer gets to choose what they review. Just looking at GiantBomb, the last three reviews all got 4/5, they are Dead Rising 2 Case Zero, Halo Reach, and Sports Champions, the last two both written by Jeff. Now, I have never even heard of Sports Champions, I know for a fact that because of that, it is something I can't believe is of anything like equal quality to Halo Reach which is the best console shooter I've ever played and almost certainly my GOTY...

So I clicked on the review, and it's Sony's WiiSports it appears. I can't imagine a game more different. Jeff might genuinely feel they are about the same quality, but I imagine it's more likely that he is curving his scores based on who the reader is. That's certainly one approach to reviewing, but I also have no issue with someone being brutally honest.

I think the best game I've ever played is Ico, on metacritic the lowest score is 75, admittedly that's still not bad, and the review in question is quite poorly written, but it reads as though from the heart, the reviewer although not well able to articulate the issues, clearly had mixed feelings and scored the game accordingly.

Inaccuracy is unacceptable of course, but negative opinions of an experience are perfectly fine to me.

 

[Shaka]

No, but a review from someone who "gets" the series might be a little more helpful. Would someone who hates FPS be a good candidate to review the newest high-profile fps? I want the opinion of someone who's a fan of the series and is just as hyped as I am. We all go easy on our favorite franchises because we know they consist of more than the flaws they may have. I want someone who like me, can look past the flaws and see the big picture. You looked past the flaws earlier when you said..


That is what i want to see in a review, not some laundry lists of insignificant flaws that a fan could easily ignore.

:lol Not a fan of Halo=Not a fan of FPS

 

[FartOfWar]

Reading this thread makes me especially happy to be making games instead of reviewing them. Congrats on the game, Luke and Bungie.

 

[shinnn]

Really, what is with that Game Shark C review?

"by Tom Chick"

I just googled it then...

- Tom Chick: The Man Who Hated Deus Ex

- I will tell you why Killzone 2 probably isn't worth playing.

- Guess who wrote the lowest StarCraft II review?

:lol

 

[Mastperf]

:lol Not a fan of Halo=Not a fan of FPS

I was just using that as a broad example. The point is that anyone who reviews Reach and gives it a 5/10 is clearly not a fan of the series. The same would hold true for any other great game that was poorly scored by a jackass with an agenda. Contrary to what some might think, opinions can be and often are wrong.

"by Tom Chick"

I just googled it then...

- Tom Chick: The Man Who Hated Deus Ex

- I will tell you why Killzone 2 probably isn't worth playing.

- Guess who wrote the lowest StarCraft II review?

:lol

There's your "jackass with an agenda" proof.

 

[Flynn]

Tom has his own taste. I admire the guy for sticking to his guns.

 

[Prentice]

I already said why (like a person who doesn't like sports game reviewing madden). Just like I would be a bad person to review a Metal Gear Solid game, because I dislike the series. My review would be horribly biased and I would nitpick every small detail I don't like.

Why even review it at all then? Not everyone reading the review is a fan of the series. His opinion may be pertinent to others who generally have felt the same way about Halo.

Also, Tom Chick gave it a C - Metacritic turned that into a 5/10. And while Tom Chick ragged on Deus Ex when it first came out, he re-reviewed it and gave it a perfect score (not that the score matters).

I also don't understand how anyone could criticize game journalism because of criticism.