...that the four star rating for halo reach was incredibly predictable? Honestly, ratings on this site can be predicted by the respective reviewer’s level of excitement prior to the game's release. Jeff's general apathy towards the release of the game (and I'm not just talking about that twitter post, you can listen to the bombcast and hear what I’m talking about) was clear evidence that none of the fundamental changes shown off in the beta or referenced in other reviews would make that much of an impact on him, as opposed to other games.
       That brings me to a question I've been considering for a while. By the logic of my thinking above, Drew should have reviewed this game. Clearly Drew has the most experience with the Halo franchise, and would have appreciated the changes the most, and he most likely would have given the game a higher score.

       HOWEVER, is that the best way to review a game? Should a spoken fan of the franchise review the game, because they will understand the gravity of the changes, or should someone who doesn’t care review the game, because they will be more willing to expose the game’s flaws?
 
EDIT: Please focus on the last paragraph of this post, I'm just using the Reach review as a framing device for my question