I would like to add; out of the 3-4 reviews I just read through, it's all about how campaign is just a 'rehash', isn't that the Bungie way? To take a tried and true method and keep it going? Also, the reviews were mostly just on the campaign, some slightly touched on what was in multiplayer, but they were all done as if the game wouldn't be played when Blackops comes out. Surely at least one review would accidently (or otherwise) stumble upon ForgeHub and see the massive following Halo 3 still has/d even now. And to not even bring up Forge! They just mark down a game for being the same, when all FPS are generally the same. and They didn't even mention the OST!
So Worthplaying.com gave Reach an 8.5. I began to think that they were COD fanboys when they said you could play "Team Deathmatch". So I checked out their Modern Liquidshit 2 review and found this: "...New weapons, attachments and challenges will have hardcore players mixing and matching and coming up with plenty of different classes(1) as they explore the ridiculous number of maps(2) in the game...There are few games that feature maps this well-designed(3), class balance this tight(4) and this much freedom of customization(5) all in one package. Truly, there isn't a thing in multiplayer worth complaining about.(6) Furthermore, if you do manage to eventually tire of the competitive multiplayer, there's still the brand-new and highly worthwhile Spec Ops(7) mode to occupy your time...Spec Ops earns its place in the game and will easily be an option you come back to again and again(8) because it's just so darn fun(9)." 1. People only use like 10 different weapons 2. Quality>Quantity 3. They musta' been high. 4. Again, high as a kite 5. Since when does choosing what guns you use equal 'freedom of custimization'? 6. ...I don't even know what to say about that. 7. Highly worthwhile= Only playing it for the achievements 8. Um, nope. I didn't repeat a single Spec Ops mission after i beat it 9. Ha! more like tedious and aggravating.
i didn't trust game reviews once i hit about 14. they review games aimed at the casual, they expect you to be fine with shelling out the £40, having an amazing 2 days and then putting it in your cupboard. I mean IGN gave GTA4 a 10 didn't they?
Halo games will be played much longer than COD games. With the exception of Halo 3:ODST, Bungie has released a version of Halo every 3 years... while COD needs to come up with a new game almost every year just to keep people's interest. People review games based on instant gratification, not their longevity and Halo wins a landslide victory in that department simply because it's replayability due to user created maps in Forge.
Could you people please stop comparing Reach reviews to those of MW2? its not like the reviews are going to change your opinion of the game. Reviews are not going to change anybodys mind about buying the game. So honestly why the hell do you give two shits about the dumbasses at IGN and other reviewers say about it? And now you are are just being a biased jackass. MW2 was a good game that was ruined by trolls in multiplayer and glitches that IW neglected. 1. People only use like 10 different weapons- not really 2. Quality>Quantity- see below 3. They musta' been high.- no, the maps were good for the most part, i can think of 1 bad map 4. Again, high as a kite- everything was very balanced, almost to a point where it was a problem that everything too balanced so assholes had to find ways to exploit things 5. Since when does choosing what guns you use equal 'freedom of custimization'?- how does it not? 6. ...I don't even know what to say about that. - there really wasnt much to complain about until all the glitches and exploitations were found. it was a solid multiplayer that the players ruined. 7. Highly worthwhile= Only playing it for the achievements- i very much enjoyed spec ops 8. Um, nope. I didn't repeat a single Spec Ops mission after i beat it- me and my buddy played through the whole thing at least 3 times, and select missions many more times 9. Ha! more like tedious and aggravating.- most would disagree, it was extremely fun, even the difficult parts.
But its not just £40, Matty. Once you think that nearly all games have DLC now. Which is fine if the DLC is additional extra content, rather than bits the cut out of the on-disc content just so they could release DLC and get people paying an extra £10. But I try to avoid game reviews (or any reviews) which giving a rating as a number, its bad enough that they use a scale with no possible units to compare every single game but it really annoys me when they then try to use "%" as a unit... Oh! That game got 90%! 90% of what? Oh, I see, you mean 9 out of 10... 9 out of 10 of what? What was the other 1 it didn't get? And what's the point of having a scale which apparently goes from 0 to 10 if your lowest scoring game got 2? Sort of brings down those games which did get 10 out of 10; sure, you got 10 but every game reviewed gets at least 2 so you only really earned 8/10 for your game. But I suppose I'm getting off topic. I want to play Reach, I'm sure I will enjoy playing Reach and I'm certain that anyone reading this is also a fan of Halo (unless you were searching Google and the year is actually 2015 and this old forum post came up for some obscure reason. In that case: Hello from the past!)
It's a reviewers job to tell whether a game has lived up to hype, assign a number on a 5-10 weighted by what they think the majority wants to hear, and then (unless it's complete and utter trash) tell you to buy the game. If you want honest game reviews, with really witty write-ups, you better have a time machine.
Or a SargeantSarcasm of your own; but I hear he only does movies. Again, the only beef I've had with the reviews is they almost all neglected Forge and none went into multiplayer detail at all.
Replying to your comments. 1. UMP, Intervention, ACR, SCAR, Spas-12, Thumper, AA-12, FAMAS, M16, RPG 2 and 3. Estate, Karachi, Derail, Invasion, Rundown, Underpass, and Wasteland were all bad maps that encouraged camping. Favela almost got on this list, but it really is just a fun map. 4. LOL IT WAS NOT BALANCED, WHY WOULD YOU EVEN ARGUE THIS? This is probably the most unbalanced fps I have ever played. The guns you start with are ****, everybody else gets amazing guns and stays at level 70. Let me know if you want to argue this more. 5. The choice in guns was pretty amazing. I can't argue with you there, but it doesn't count for much if they're not balanced. 6. I would complain about the Overpowered weapons such as the UMP, ACR, AK-47, and AA-12 and cheap tactics such as commando and noob tubing, not to mention all the camping encouraged by the map design. The ones that have nothing to do with skill and just guarantee kills. 7. I also enjoyed spec-ops for the most part. Really great new feature mw2 brought. 8. Spec-ops has a little replayability, but you're not going to want to do a mission more than two or three times. 9. I wouldn't complain about the difficulty, if it was a breeze like the campaign, nobody would play it because it would be boring. The difficulty is what makes it fun for the most part. And you called him the biased jackass, you're just as biased as he is. Quit being fanboys. And just cause I feel like it, MW2 gets 8.5/10
I will argue that one. You just stated that "the guns you start with are ****" when 7 of the 10 guns you just stated as being overused are either available from the start or unlocked before level 20. and dont call me a fanboy, i hate mw2 more than any other game i own, and i would gladly defend halo as to being the best FPS (gears is better, but its a TPS). but i evaluate games fairly from a neutral standpoint. mw2 was a good game that was ruined by the people who played it. i hope so, buck is one of my favorite halo characters.
I wasn't talking nesscarily just about the guns, perks like lightweight, marathon, sleight of hand, cold blooded, sitrep. Anyway... I was looking through some custom map variants, it allowed me to search by map, and I noticed it said mission 2, 3, 4, 5 ect. CAN WE FORGE CAMPAIGN? 0.o
That's just for screenshots. I initially thought the exact same thing though. There must have been a better way to design that.
I almost didn't recognize you with the new rank I'm pretty sure it's just there to say that the following pages/documents are meant to be classified. or it could be engineers? i'm certain we've seen every enemy so far.