Does Halo: Reach deserve the critical reception it gained?

  • 0 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Edited by Kahnero (78 posts) -

Here are the results from metacritic an gamerankings. 
http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/halo-reach
http://www.gamerankings.com/xbox360/960512-halo-reach/index.html     
 
Overall, this game is universally acclaimed by critics. However, it managed to receive less positive reception than the first three in the main trilogy.  
 
So, do you think it deserved the right amount of critical praise it received? Do you think it should have been scored lower or higher? What would you have scored it? Discuss. 
 
I say it flabbergasts me that it managed to receive lower reception than Halo 2 & 3. I found it to be an astounding game in every way. It has an outstanding campaign, satisfying story, superb multi-player, forge world is endless fun, gorgeous visuals, some of the best music in the medium, and no game type of it's kind beats Fire Fight 2.0. I have to say I wish it gained like a 95 or 96. I say it's the best Halo since Combat Evolved.

#2 Posted by xyzygy (10032 posts) -

It made over $200,000,000 on it's first day. I'm guessing that people like it, so yeah?

#3 Posted by AlisterCat (5634 posts) -

It should have been scored how it was scored. To say otherwise would be to insult the opinion of the reviewers by insinuating that your opinion is more valid.

Online
#4 Posted by Rawrz (590 posts) -

It has a great campaign, one of the greatest multiplayers ever in a game, and a ridiculous amount of customization that will keep the game popular for a long time, so yeah id say its very deserving of all its praise.

#5 Posted by kariyanine (217 posts) -

I think if you look at that average (92) it seems quite fair.  Reach by most accounts (including my own) is the best evolution of the Bungie made Halo model.   The competitive multiplayer package has been improved, the single player is quite fun and the co-op aspects of it have been improved in every way possible,  Its a Halo game through and through, some are going to be down on it because of that by itself and that is a shame because its one of the best games to come out this year.

#6 Posted by zombie2011 (4982 posts) -

Best multiplayer i've ever played. 
 
Haven't finished the campaign so i can't say much about it, but yeah this game is definitely amazing.

#7 Posted by BSchneider30 (58 posts) -

It doesn't matter.  Do you like it?  If yes, play the hell out of it.  If no, then do not.  

#8 Posted by Jimbo (9869 posts) -

It doesn't really say anything about the game either way.  You could have asked the games press to review it blind and you'd still get the same score.  Once game franchises reach this size, they effectively have review immunity.

#9 Posted by natetodamax (19212 posts) -

Why are people so anal when it comes to Halo?

#10 Posted by ESREVER (2700 posts) -

I honestly didn't care for the Campaign, which was disappointing for me. Because the biggest thing I was looking forward to about this game was the campaign. I loved the novel, and I love the Halo universe. But I didn't love the campaign experience. I didn't get attached to any of the characters at all. 
  
The below spoiler has a campaign spoiler from Reach and Valkyria Chronicles.

 
I didn't feel like a spartan when I played, and I didn't feel like I was in the company of spartans. Except maybe Jorge. 
I haven't played the multiplayer yet, other than beta. But I'm sure that will be awesome.
#11 Posted by Videogames (257 posts) -

My halo reach review, two words, SUPER GANGSTA

#12 Posted by WilliamRLBaker (4778 posts) -

No.
I expected more. Bungie really took alot of ideas from COD and treyarch cinematically...ect

#13 Posted by Hitchenson (4682 posts) -

Yes. It's the most fun I've had on a videogame this year. It's terrific! 

#14 Posted by PrivateIronTFU (3874 posts) -

Yes. Little visual quirks aside, this is the best campaign out of any Halo game. It's the most fully featured and definitely worth the 60 bucks. Some people just have unrealistic expectations, and won't be pleased, regardless of the quality and quantity of the game.

#15 Posted by Empirepaintball (1393 posts) -
@xyzygy said:
"It made over $200,000,000 on it's first day. I'm guessing that people like it, so yeah? "
#16 Posted by chronicsmoke (996 posts) -

Yep great game

#17 Posted by Kahnero (78 posts) -
@WilliamRLBaker said:
" No. I expected more. Bungie really took alot of ideas from COD and treyarch cinematically...ect "
Wait? What? 
 
@ESREVER
said:
" I honestly didn't care for the Campaign, which was disappointing for me. Because the biggest thing I was looking forward to about this game was the campaign. I loved the novel, and I love the Halo universe. But I didn't love the campaign experience. I didn't get attached to any of the characters at all. 
  
The below spoiler has a campaign spoiler from Reach and Valkyria Chronicles.
 I didn't feel like a spartan when I played, and I didn't feel like I was in the company of spartans. Except maybe Jorge. I haven't played the multiplayer yet, other than beta. But I'm sure that will be awesome. "
Why you didn't like the campaign? I thought it was superb. Way better than Halo 2, 3 & ODST. It rivals that of Combat Evolved.
#18 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8699 posts) -

In my eyes it deserves it.
Certainly one of the grandest games ever made.
 
And that's coming from a girl with a Triforce tattoo.

#19 Posted by Yummylee (22062 posts) -
@TaliciaDragonsong said:
" And that's coming from a girl with a Triforce tattoo. "
I'm going to guess lower-back...or forehead.... I really hope it's forehead xP
Online
#20 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8699 posts) -
@Abyssfull: 
Keep guessing!
But not too much since that's considered spam! xD
#21 Posted by Afroman269 (7387 posts) -
@natetodamax said:
" Why are people so anal when it comes to Halo? "
It's a big franchise. Of course it's going to come with haters and fanboys.  
 
In my opinion I think Halo Reach is a solid Halo game. Jeff hit the main points on the head. I'm enjoying the hell out of the multiplayer so sure I'll say that it deserves good critical reception. If you don't care for it then actually act like you don't care and play something else.
#22 Posted by adoggz (2070 posts) -
@TaliciaDragonsong said:
" In my eyes it deserves it. Certainly one of the grandest games ever made. "
This. I love the everloving shit out of this game. also I don't think I've ever felt more attached to a character in any game as I am toward my noble 6.
#23 Edited by Yummylee (22062 posts) -
@TaliciaDragonsong said:

" @Abyssfull:  Keep guessing! But not too much since that's considered spam! xD "

It's not the shoulder is it, you massive bore? =O 
 
Oh if it isn't then I apologise for calling you a massive bore X)
Online
#24 Posted by TaliciaDragonsong (8699 posts) -
@Abyssfull: 
Oi! Don't make me tattoo something mean on your forehead!
And depends how you look at it! 
It's the upper left arm, so close enough!
#25 Posted by TheHBK (5507 posts) -

The game is great.  The campaign is the most engaging for me since the first Halo.  The first Halo was not deep but the sense of awe you got from that game was never brought back.  This game, you get to see great new landscapes and the feeling of being part of a team is there.  
The graphics though, sheesh, i dont know what pipe the reviewers are smoking but the game don't look so hot to me.  There is so much jagginess in there.  It can be hard to see stuff sometimes.

#26 Posted by Kahnero (78 posts) -
@TheHBK said:
"

The game is great.  The campaign is the most engaging for me since the first Halo.  The first Halo was not deep but the sense of awe you got from that game was never brought back.  This game, you get to see great new landscapes and the feeling of being part of a team is there.  
The graphics though, sheesh, i dont know what pipe the reviewers are smoking but the game don't look so hot to me.  There is so much jagginess in there.  It can be hard to see stuff sometimes.

"
What are you smoking? (Sorry for the lame joke there) I though the visuals are some of the best on the Xbox360, they look better than Mass Effect 2 and almost as good as Alane Wake. Gears of War 2 is the best looking 360 game to date, but Reach is definitely in the top 5.
#27 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11917 posts) -

This is a relevant and original topic.

#28 Posted by Kahnero (78 posts) -
@ArbitraryWater said:
" This is a relevant and original topic. "
What's so wrong with asking this question? No one else made a thread that asked the same question.
#29 Posted by HitmanAgent47 (8576 posts) -

Not sure, I don't own a xbox360. However since it's both 92% on both gamerankings and metacritic, we have to conclude that it's probally that good if many of the reviewers agrees it's that high. Still I think it's multiplayer gives it that score and replayability, of course i'm just speculating.

#30 Posted by ThaAssTornado (13 posts) -

Halo has always been the best fps on consoles. is it HL2,no. but all the games have been good........except odst i hate that game so much

#31 Posted by Gabriel (4067 posts) -

92 is very good for pretty much the same formula since the first Halo, though Reach is probably better than 2.

#32 Posted by Kahnero (78 posts) -
@HitmanAgent47 said:
"

Not sure, I don't own a xbox360. However since it's both 92% on both gamerankings and metacritic, we have to conclude that it's probally that good if many of the reviewers agrees it's that high. Still I think it's multiplayer gives it that score and replayability, of course i'm just speculating.

"
The reception towards the campaign have been very positive, but some critics called it lackluster or disappointing. The story and characters received mixed reactions.
#33 Posted by Glak (613 posts) -

I'm loving it right now, so yea

#34 Posted by teh_pwnzorer (1482 posts) -

I grew up with Mario and Microprose sims.  I'm too old to understand what the hoopla over Halo is.

#35 Posted by Claude (16254 posts) -

I was watching TNT and it looks pretty good to me. I don't have any interest in playing, but I can see why people really dig it.

#36 Posted by Kahnero (78 posts) -
@Gabriel said:
" 92 is very good for pretty much the same formula since the first Halo, though Reach is probably better than 2. "
It is better than 2, and it's better than Halo 3 in my opinion. It doesn't innovate, but I don't think it really needed to. It just wants to refine everything that fans loved about the original titles, and add a few new stuff to the mix to keep it fresh. Not just some gimmicks they thrown in, these added features are actually meaningful and add depth to the formula without hampering with it. It's Bungie last Halo, which is a good thing. If they made another one after this, this series would get stale even for fanboys for the series. 
 
It's the definitive Halo, from the people who brought you Halo.
#37 Posted by teh_pwnzorer (1482 posts) -
@Kahnero said:
"  It doesn't innovate, but I don't think it really needed to. "
So what did gametrailers give it?  The gametrailers kids made a big deal about the lack of "innovation" in Uncharted 2 and gave it <90% for this reason.
#38 Posted by ozzdog12 (862 posts) -

Im a pretty big Halo fanboy and I've literally seen almost nothing but praise for Reach and while in most cases it deserves it, I thought it was the worst story out of all the Halo games....and that hurts me to say....It just seemed....'meh'

#39 Posted by Kahnero (78 posts) -
@teh_pwnzorer said:
" I grew up with Mario and Microprose sims.  I'm too old to understand what the hoopla over Halo is. "
Halo: Reach is perfect for fans, but it's not going to change anyone's minds for those who were never a fan of the series. 
 
@teh_pwnzorer
said:
" @Kahnero said:
"  It doesn't innovate, but I don't think it really needed to. "
So what did gametrailers give it?  The gametrailers kids made a big deal about the lack of "innovation" in Uncharted 2 and gave it <90% for this reason. "
Halo: Reach actually made a lower score than Halo 3, and GT constantly bickered how Halo: Reach's multi-player didn't stack up to MW2. I can't tell if that's funny or sad, probably both.
#40 Posted by HistoryInRust (6338 posts) -

This is kind of why putting so much emphasis on the numerical quotient of review scores is not the correct thing to do.

#41 Posted by Kahnero (78 posts) -
@Sir_Ragnarok said:
" This is kind of why putting so much emphasis on the numerical quotient of review scores is not the correct thing to do. "
So.... Do you think it deserves the critical reception it received?
#42 Posted by Scheds (464 posts) -

I'm definitely not a hater of Halo, but from the (limited) time I've had with Reach, I'm... pretty underwhelmed. But I've barely scratched the surface, I'm sure, and probably never will since I don't have my own Xbox and don't play shooters online!

#43 Posted by Brendan (7845 posts) -

It sold gangbusters and it averaged close to perfect scores from dozens of reviewers.  What do you want, a national holiday?  Halo worshipers are as annoying as halo haters.  I'm just gonna go play Reach now.
#44 Edited by jkz (4043 posts) -

Let me make this clear: I really do enjoy Halo's multi-player. It has taken up all of my gaming time since Reach has come out, and Halo 3 was a staple for me for years. 
 
However, I couldn't agree more with the A.V. club review, which is more traditional, in that it evaluates mainly the single-player. I urge everyone to not look at the score, and read the review: it's incredibly well-written for a game review, and it touches on almost all of my issues regarding Halo's (and many other games') single-player campaigns.
 
http://origin.avclub.com/articles/halo-reach,45228/   

 " The new Halo: Reach doesn’t have a single relationship—or for that matter, a single moment—that displays this kind of relatable humanity. Instead, it gives us a squad of anonymous super-soldiers who, over the course of the game, literally disappear inside their own hyperbolic armor."     

#45 Posted by septim (774 posts) -

It feels like a ten year old game. A really great ten year old game. 
 
Glad to see Bungie has moved on. Reach seems hamstrung by having to "stay true" to the past (but really future) Halo games.

#46 Posted by Kahnero (78 posts) -
@jukezypoo said:
" Let me make this clear: I really do enjoy Halo's multi-player. It has taken up all of my gaming time since Reach has come out, and Halo 3 was a staple for me for years. 
 
However, I couldn't agree more with the A.V. club review, which is more traditional, in that it evaluates mainly the single-player. I urge everyone to not look at the score, and read the review: it's incredibly well-written for a game review, and it touches on almost all of my issues regarding Halo's (and many other games') single-player campaigns.
 
http://origin.avclub.com/articles/halo-reach,45228/   

 " The new Halo: Reach doesn’t have a single relationship—or for that matter, a single moment—that displays this kind of relatable humanity. Instead, it gives us a squad of anonymous super-soldiers who, over the course of the game, literally disappear inside their own hyperbolic armor."      "
That review was terrible, it focused more on the story aspect than the gameplay. I agree with their statements towards the storytelling, but that doesn't equate to the actual gameplay.
#47 Posted by HistoryInRust (6338 posts) -
@Kahnero said:
" @Sir_Ragnarok said:
" This is kind of why putting so much emphasis on the numerical quotient of review scores is not the correct thing to do. "
So.... Do you think it deserves the critical reception it received? "
Well, I don't know what you're asking, because you're posting the question as one thing and then your discussion of it dovetails into relative review scores. It's a red herring discussion.  
 
If by "the critical reception it received," you mean, "critics think this is a good-ass Halo game," then sure. It totally warrants it. If by "critical reception" you mean "Metacritic score of 92 as opposed to Halo 3's 93", then I think we're talking about nebulous aggregated semantics. Which basically means it's a circular discussion that goes nowhere. 
#48 Edited by Tru3_Blu3 (3222 posts) -

Halo Reach's campaign was only good till the ending. The whole game was a horribly designed mess. The Elites weren't as enjoyable to fight compared to CE's, and the difficulty was cheap instead of challenging like CE's. I was more frustrated then satisfied, and the plot points were very immature and poorly planned. The whole campaign goes to show that Bungie can no longer make a good Halo campaign. At least the multiplayer and customization is great; it's just too bad that the campaign didn't follow up with CE, or even ODST's (which I thought was short and sweet).

#49 Posted by DarkGamerOO7 (574 posts) -

I fully believe it did. People complain and whine about the Halo series but I believe it is the best first person shooter series available next to Half-Life.

#50 Edited by big_jon (5743 posts) -

It got great Reviews and it is a great game, stop with this stuff. 
 
 Go play it and make up your own mind. 
 
The story had more of an emotional impact on me personally than any other game I think Ive ever played.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.