I disagree with Toms review, it just sounds like the ramblings of Yahtzee from escapist magazine; and come on people, do you really take in to consideration the ranting of a cynical English dude when you're weighing the option of buying games? His review is what I call half baked; he's only touching the small parts of what I thought was a much deeper story line then any other halo game which has came before it. It was more philosophical then its predecessors in certain points and it had some great plot points through out the narrative. Sure, there were points when the story did get a little tiresome, but that happens in all forms of media; whether it's books or films, lulls in plots are bound to happen. They're a device which is supposed to build any sense of tension or anxiety whilst giving people the right amount of exposition, they break up the action and help set a sense of pacing for transitioning from one engagement to the next.
Another thing I like about halo 4' campaign was the interplay between characters, I have always loved the banter between chief and Cortana; but this time it felt a little more grounded and serious in places. I liked the sense of roll reversal, that something synthetic and artificial was worrying about its own mortality whilst chief came across as even more machine like and distant from the rest of humanity. Chief gave me the impression that he didn't want to help out humanity this time, a part of me thinks he doesn't really care anymore. He's like John Mc'clain, the wrong place at the wrong time; he saves humanity not because he wants to, but because he has to. And there is a difference between wanting to and having to.
I think Tom isn't really a deep thinking kind of gamer. His comments come across as a call of duty player bashing halo for what it doesn't have but call of duty has, like "Halo sucks because you can't get air strikes and stuff like that." No, we just prefer to do our own killing and not throw it down to a 'be all and end all' predator strike. But I'm getting side tracked there, Tom has missed the point big time; he refuses to see the bigger picture and dive deeper in to the story. He also doesn't seem to realize that the campaign doesn't stop after the credits, there is spartan ops; which is pretty damn good so far.
Anyways, halo 4 is probably the best game of 2012. It's design is fantastic, it sounds amazing and its vision to strive to become more is just breathtaking. I gave the game a good 9.5/10 (because I think competitive multi-player is pretty crappy and nothing more then a soul grind.) But Toms review, 0/10. It's just an asinine rant with no constructive criticism or anything worthwhile. Reviewers like that come across as pretty dull people, and granted, I can be like that from time to time with certain games ( I love tearing call of duty games apart.). But we all have out tastes, at least write something worthwhile about them.
Log in to comment