Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb Review

261 Comments

Halo 3: ODST Review

4
  • X360

If you like the way Bungie makes first-person shooters, you'll enjoy Halo 3: ODST.


You've got a tough mission ahead of you... but first you'll have to make it out of your drop pod. 
You've got a tough mission ahead of you... but first you'll have to make it out of your drop pod. 
If you're still trying to wrap your mind around what, exactly, Halo 3: ODST is, perhaps it'll help you to think of it as if  it were a PC-style expansion that doesn't require the original game to play. It uses a lot of the same technology that powered Halo 3 back in 2007, and it tells a story that exists concurrently with some of the events of Halo 2 and Halo 3. It makes some interesting changes to Bungie's battle-tested design style, but at its core, it still maintains that Halo feel. If you liked Halo 3 and have any interest in the expanded Halo universe, you'll enjoy the new things that ODST has to offer.

In ODST, you'll play as an ODST--that's Orbital Drop Shock Trooper. These are the guys that launch down from the sky in pods, and they represent some of Earth's best soldiers. But the key is that the ODSTs are still merely human. They aren't genetically engineered badasses like the Master Chief. So the characters you play as here are a little more fragile than the shielded and armored super trooper you're used to controlling in Halo games. They aren't tough enough to dual-wield weapons. They aren't rough enough to hijack enemy vehicles. They aren't strong enough to pull off that huge, floaty jump that the Master Chief has. They aren't crafty enough to collect and deploy equipment like you could in Halo 3. And they don't have health that automatically recharges when you take damage. That said, the ODSTs still have shields of some sort. It's referred to as "stamina" in-game, but it serves the same purpose as the Chief's shields and recharges when you stay out of battle for a few seconds. Your health meter--the one that gets rocked when you get caught while out of stamina--doesn't recharge on its own. To rectify health issues, you'll have to seek out medkits, which are usually plentiful enough to make health loss a non-issue. Beyond these changes, the ODSTs you'll control in the campaign are roughly equivalent to the big Spartan.

The other big change in ODST is that these guys are equipped with different helmet-based heads-up displays. The new HUD--which comes from your visor and is helpfully called VISR--comes with a light amplification option that brightens things up and enhances the edges of objects. This is handy, as significant portions of the campaign are done under cover of darkness. The edge enhancement is especially cool in the darkest areas. The lines it draws around the edges of things makes the game look like some kind of militaristic Tron arena or something. While you don't have a motion sensor, hitting the back button brings up a map of the city, showing you where you need to go, nearby enemies, and more. The map screen, also, looks really nice. The key reason for having a map--as well as an on-screen compass that directs you to waypoints--is that a chunk of ODST is played in a sort of open-world hub that links the game's missions together.

 Who is The Rookie?
 Who is The Rookie?
The open nature of the New Mombasa streets makes sense in the context of the game's story. Five ODST troops drop into New Mombasa with a Naval Intelligence officer named Dare. She doesn't really get into the specifics of the mission, and things go wrong almost immediately because your insertion pods are knocked off course when a Covenant cruiser positioned above the city jumps into slipspace. This rips up the city and sends your team's pods careening off-course, separating the crew. The game opens with you in control of a character known only as The Rookie. He immediately hooks up with the city's computers, giving you map data and navigation points that point you in the direction of the rest of your team. When you get to the proper location (usually by finding a key item, like Dare's helmet, or a bent-up sniper rifle), the game switches into a flashback. These are the game's missions, and most of them put you in the role of one of the other members of your team. These missions are linear and very much designed in the Halo tradition. Once you complete a mission, The Rookie gets new data and moves to the next spot. The juxtaposition between the quiet, nighttime city, where The Rookie can stick to the shadows and avoid a lot of combat as he moves from spot to spot and the large, loud battles that you've come to expect from the Halo series is an interesting one. Even though there isn't that much to do when you're not in an active mission, the dark, open city gives ODST a very different atmosphere from the other games in the line. The game's great soundtrack really contributes to that feel, as well.

As you work your way through the city, you may run into one of the 30 audio clips hidden there. These are designed to be a basic collectible and to give you a reason to run around the entire city, rather than just sticking to the critical path and heading from one mission to the next. The clips string together to form a fairly interesting story that's set around the time of the Covenant first landing at New Mombasa. It also gives you some insight into the nature of the Superintendent, which is a city-wide AI that subtly guides you around the city by changing video screens around town to big detour arrows aimed in the direction of your next objective or a nearby audio log. The story that plays out in these audio logs is tied to the game's story, but it features more interesting characters than the actual game does. The Rookie doesn't speak, which sort of makes him the most interesting character by default. The rest of the ODST crew chats it up, but a lot of that dialogue feels forced, with plenty of generic-sounding military talk. And the all-too-convenient romantic past between the ODST squad leader and the female naval intelligence officer doesn't bring any heat to the proceedings.

The campaign kept me going for just under seven hours on the game's "heroic" difficulty setting. Like Halo 3 before it, the developers recommend that players familiar with the series start at this setting. On normal or lower, the combat is painfully easy--which is fine if you're a novice, but won't be much fun for anyone else. On the highest setting, again known as legendary, the game becomes much more of a challenge, making it something that's best suited for cooperative play. Like Halo 3 before it, ODST allows up to four players to play via Xbox Live or LAN. It's a fun way to play, though there's something cool about the solitary nature of The Rookie's portion of the journey that doesn't feel quite right when you're rolling around with three partners.

The squad, before everything goes wrong. 
The squad, before everything goes wrong. 
In addition to playing the campaign cooperatively, there's also a new co-op mode called firefight. This is a survival-type mode, which puts the players in a confined area and sets them against waves of Covenant enemies. The longer you last and the more enemies you take down, the higher you score. As you clear out waves, the game turns on more and more skulls, which are the secret items that you could use to modify the difficulty in Halo 3. In ODST, all of the skulls are the same, but they're all automatically unlocked from the get-go. Firefight encourages players to hunker down and defend small areas, sort of like the Gears of War 2 horde mode. For me, though, Halo is all about shooting on the move, not sitting down and controlling a specific spot. That's probably the reason why I don't find firefight to be very engaging, especially on its higher difficulty settings.

If that was the complete package, ODST would be a pretty good expansion type of package, provided it was available at an expansion sort of price. But there's a second disc in the package that offers every bit of Halo 3's competitive multiplayer, including all of the downloadable maps that have been made available via the Xbox Live Marketplace since Halo 3's release. It's a weird offering, because I find it hard to believe that anyone thinking about buying ODST doesn't already have Halo 3. And in the case of fanatical Halo fans, chances are they already paid for one or more of the map packs when they were released digitally. The one catch is that this disc, marked "Halo 3: Mythic," comes with three maps that will be exclusive to this collection. It's a convenient disc for Halo 3 multiplayer fans to own, but it feels like something that was tacked onto the collection in order to further justify the package's $59.99 price tag... and it's something that a sizable piece of the game's prospective audience probably already owns.

They're not the Master Chief, but they have most of his moves. 
They're not the Master Chief, but they have most of his moves. 
Though the technology that powered Halo 3 has aged, ODST still looks quite nice for a 2009 release. That's mostly thanks to the lighting. New Mombasa looks great at night, as the raging fires around the city give the sky a red glow, while the whole area is large enough to give you the sense of being stranded in a big, enemy-filled area. The video signs, which flicker to life as the Superintendent passes you messages, have a clean design style that really adds to the game's look and feel. The daytime missions look fine, as well.

Halo 3: ODST fills in a few interesting spots in the Halo timeline, even if the characters themselves aren't strong enough to carry the narrative. But it strikes a healthy balance between new twists and more content done in Bungie's trademark style. The more important thing is that if you've enjoyed playing Bungie's Halo games in the past, chances are you'll continue to enjoy that style in ODST. 
 
Disclosure: The game featured in this review is or was an advertised product on giantbomb.com.
Jeff Gerstmann on Google+

261 Comments

Avatar image for zymase
zymase

189

Forum Posts

16

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 5

Edited By zymase

"Disclosure: The game featured in this review is or was an advertised product on giantbomb.com."
 
Centuries of civilization have now culminated in what will be known forevermore as the Gerstmann Disclosure.

Avatar image for whatthegeek
whatthegeek

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By whatthegeek
@Zabant: I'm gonna assume your comment was meant for ma as it attempted to address the points I made, so I'll just go ahead and fire back.
 
1. Giant Bomb had to agree to, and allow the advertising, you're absolutely correct. The FTC now requires bloggers and other web journalists to disclose when an article or post was sponsored as part of their truth in advertising guidelines. In short, the disclosure is there because it hast to be, regardless of whether they chose the honest path.
 
2. Anyone can review a game as they see fit; my concern here is that given the large amount of advertising on this page, ODST was reviewed as the sponsors saw fit - after all, it would look pretty bad for MS / Bungie if an unfavorable review were wrapped in an ad for the game. 
 
3. Not trying to generate any rumors, just asking some questions, and pointing out some trade laws that apply to bloggers, and could very well apply to this review.
 
4. How is it NOT yester-year's multiplayer? The MP component of this game came out in 2007 as part of Halo 3. 
 
If it really is an unbiased review, then I like it just fine. If it's a paid review where money changed hands in return for a favorable review, then I don't like it - and neither should you.
Avatar image for drlove
DrLove

449

Forum Posts

37

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By DrLove
@whatthegeek said:

"Wait.... why is everyone giving them a free pass because there's a disclosure note at the bottom of the article? They're admitting they took money from MS / Bungie / some ad agency representing MS or Bungie because the FTC demands it. This is a rather favorable review for a game with an extremely short campaign, and yester-year's multiplayer. I really want to think the best of Giant Bomb, especially after the Kane and Lynch debacle that changed Jeff's career path, but seeing a favorable review for a game wrapped in a large ad for that game, on a page re-skinned to match the color scheme of that game kinda makes me a little uneasy. The disclosure doesn't specify, so hopefully someone from GB will - was this a paid review? "

the score for this game will be simillar or a bit lower then most, i fail to see your point..
Avatar image for handlas
handlas

3414

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By handlas

I will gladly pass on this for the games coming out in October.

Avatar image for tehfro
TehFro

25

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By TehFro

Whatthegeek, just by knowing the previous history of these guys and what happens with "paid reviews", I think it should be pretty clear that there is no way in hell Jeff Gerstmann is going to allow this site to take money in exchange for a decent review. They've said as much pretty much since the day of this site's conception.

Avatar image for zabant
Zabant

1544

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Zabant
@whatthegeek: What does a stipulation about making sure you disclose advertising have to do with your opinion that jeff reviewed it in a favourable manner just because of said advertising?
 
This issue here is, jeff liked the game, rated it highly, you didnt and think it does not deserve the rating.
 
You have put two and two together and come to the conclusion that ITS ALL A SELLOUT OMG. when the reality is the game that is ODST is good enough to be played and deserves all the praise jeff gave it. You do not like it that a game you dont like (ignoring the fact that you have not even played it yet, so you have no right) that it got a favourable review,
 
and i will say it again, if you want to shit all over the name of jeff and say he is a sellout please. Leave and never come back, him and myself do not want you here.
Avatar image for jared
Jared

670

Forum Posts

12

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 1

Edited By Jared

Excellent review, I'll be picking this up Tuesday!

Avatar image for whatthegeek
whatthegeek

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By whatthegeek
@TehFro: Look, I really want to assume the best here, believe me. I like this site, and a lot of that comes from the honesty in their reviews and quick looks. Still, I can't help but ask questions given the set of circumstances.  The review was favorable. The review page also looks a lot like an ODST poster. The FTC recently updated their truth in advertising guidelines to require bloggers to disclose to their readers when a post was sponsored by a company. There's a disclosure notice on this post.  The GB team is generally very honest and trustworthy,  but for the right amount of money, I don't know for sure they wouldn't skimp on the morality. I just want reassurance from someone who works for GB that, while there are ODST ads, the review itself was not a sponsored post reflecting the wishes of the sponsor.
Avatar image for zabant
Zabant

1544

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Zabant
@whatthegeek: even if they did get paid for the advertising, you think they would honestly tell you in the comments section of damn review that they did indeed fudge the score?
 
Get real dude.
Avatar image for whatthegeek
whatthegeek

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By whatthegeek
@Zabant: Look, I don't know Jeff personally, but I've always liked his work - he seems like an honest guy, but the FTC requires sponsored posts to be disclosed as such, and this post contains just such a disclaimer. Like I said, I don't know Jeff personally, so I don't really know that, for the right price, his opinion is not for sale. If he chimes in and says that his opinion of the game had nothing to do with the sponsorship of this article, I'll take his word for it. I just want to hear it straight from the horse's mouth that the content itself was not bought.
Avatar image for box3ru13
Box3ru13

814

Forum Posts

83

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By Box3ru13

The funny thing is as a non-halo fan this sounds like the most suited to my play style and tastes. Gets rid of the lot of things I didn't like with H2/H3.  
 
I may just find a way to play this after all. 

Avatar image for pakx
pakx

981

Forum Posts

30

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 5

Edited By pakx
@whatthegeek:  wow is this actually an issue? i mean, you know jeff got fired for giving an honest review of a game a couple years back that his site was advertizing heavily? i really can't imagine the integrity he's shown over years of game press coverage was all a ruse so he could be dishonest in a single review that he didn't exactly lavish with praise. 
Avatar image for zabant
Zabant

1544

Forum Posts

82

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Zabant
@pakx: especially on the website that he founded.
Avatar image for octaslash
octaslash

804

Forum Posts

18

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By octaslash
@whatthegeek: This shouldn't be an issue at all. Just about every entertainment site ever has ads of what they review.
Avatar image for twoonefive
TwoOneFive

9793

Forum Posts

203

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By TwoOneFive

knew this wouldnt be all that great.  
definitely gonna pick it up though, cause my 360 is seriously collecting dust. and thats not good cause i dont want another red ring. XD 
 
nice with the disclosure at the end. i knew you guys would be smart enough to acknowledge that. 

Avatar image for jeff
jeff

6357

Forum Posts

107208

Wiki Points

176246

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 20

Edited By jeff
@whatthegeek: For starters, these FTC regulations you're citing don't actually exist. I believe there's been some extremely preliminary talk along these lines, but there's nothing in place requiring "bloggers" or whatever you want to call them to disclose anything. Regardless of that, Giant Bomb is not a "blogger" site. The situation you're thinking about is when individuals start up non-commercial blogs and eventually start receiving products and "favors" from commercial entities in exchange for favorable coverage. Something probably should be done about that, but none of that really applies to Giant Bomb.
 
Secondly, because apparently some people need it spelled out, no, our reviews are not for sale. Given the site skin on the pages for this product, we felt it best to clearly acknowledge that this review was for a product that paid to place advertisements on other parts of the site. 
 
What you do with that information is entirely up to you. If you feel you can't trust this review because it's for a product that was advertised on this site, then fine, I recommend you go read another review. Just make sure you apply that logic to every other game review site out there, because most of them have, at one time or another, taken paid advertising from Microsoft.
 
We feel that our track record on matters like these speaks for itself and don't intend to waste a lot of time writing long-winded defenses that only serve to make people more suspicious of what is, at the end of the day, entirely routine. To put it another way, writing "WE DID NOT TAKE MONEY FOR THIS REVIEW" at the bottom of a review page is pretty stupid, because we'd have to put it at the bottom of every single review we write. That's not an effective disclosure. 
 
(And, just for my own personal benefit, do you honestly think that someone would pay a review site for a 4-out-of-5 review? Once you've crossed that ethical line, why not shoot for the stars, right?)
Avatar image for sooty
Sooty

8193

Forum Posts

306

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 3

Edited By Sooty

Snazzy review page is snazzy.

Avatar image for calidan777
calidan777

916

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By calidan777
@whatthegeek: Actually, this review is noticeably more negative than other reviews for this game and that makes me sad : (
Avatar image for jakob187
jakob187

22972

Forum Posts

10045

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 9

Edited By jakob187

Oh wow.  I was going to ask "what's with the disclosure"...and then I read the comments!  HOLY FUCK, MAN!  People need to chill, especially this "whatthegeek" guy. 
 
I mean...seriously dood...if you can't trust the guys at the Bomb, who the fuck CAN you trust? 
 
I thought the review was good.  Fuck the stars.  The review said it all, and it said it well.

Avatar image for pakx
pakx

981

Forum Posts

30

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 4

User Lists: 5

Edited By pakx
@Jeff: to be entirely honest i am fucking shocked that you actually bothered to adress this kind of childish whining.
Avatar image for tirrandir
Tirrandir

222

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Tirrandir
@pakx: I felt like there should be a response, personally, since attacks on credibility could undermine the site that we all know and love.  So, I @replied him on twitter and asked if he was going to say anything, and his initial response was basically saying that he wasn't sure there was anything to gain, and thinking about it, he's probably right.  I'm glad he said something, but I feel like there shouldn't *need* to be anything said. 

/sigh
 
Pain in the ass, fandom can be.
Avatar image for ashogo
ashogo

952

Forum Posts

2820

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

Edited By ashogo
@DemonStration said:
" People here are saying, "phew, I'm glad the game got 4 stars, now I can continue trusting Giant Bomb."  What if the game genuinely earned 5 stars, regardless of the ads?  Or what if Giant Bomb actually wanted to give it 5, but gave it 4 in an attempt to maintain their credibility?  The bottom line is that this review score shouldn't be used as evidence that Giant Bomb is a credible site. Instead, listen to things they've said in the past, or the lengths they've gone to to be honest with you. Also, I understand you might not have seen their interview with the Penny Arcade guys (or any other times they might have mentioned this), but they've basically said they're intentionally cherry-picking advertising for things they know they like. "
I agree, you shouldn't use a single review to judge their honesty. Just look at giantbomb as a whole, and judge for yourself. 
I personally believe it to be one of the most honest and entertaining game sites around, but that's just me.
Avatar image for kyle
Kyle

2383

Forum Posts

6307

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 12

Edited By Kyle
@jakob187 said: Haha, right? I read the review and then looked down at the 'Comments' button and just thought "Oooooh man. This is gonna be great." And it totally was. Oh, internet. You little rascal.
Avatar image for calidan777
calidan777

916

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By calidan777

You should all read my review when I buy the game Tuesday, I'm gonna give it 5 stars.
 
Disclosure: I am a huge Halo fan, therefore my review will be completely biased.

Avatar image for danieljw
DanielJW

4933

Forum Posts

8618

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 8

Edited By DanielJW

Its sad that when a game with advertising on the site is reviewed everyone calls paid review. Hypothetically, if Halo 3: ODST had gotten 5 stars, there'd be no stopping the comments, even if the game truly deserved it.  
 
It disappoints me to think people are so quick to disregard what has been said by the Giant Bomb staff from the beginning. Sites need ads to stay alive, I'm OK with this and I understand. However I remain here because I trust the integrity of the guys. If I thought they were fudging their review scores based off of advertising dollars, I'd be gone.  
  
They've said before what they're all about, and they've never given us a reason not to trust them. I think it says a lot about the issue that Jeff took the time to address some of the bullshit claims being made here.  
  
Find me a good reason why I should stop trusting Giant Bomb. Because I don't believe there is one, from the start of the site they knew what they wanted to be, and they've stuck to it. I'm legitimately disappointed that people would make comments like these, especially without a single reason to lose trust in them. 
 
Again I'll say I thought it was a great review, looks pretty solid and Halo-ish.  I'll likely be renting it to play with one of my friends who has an Xbox. 

Avatar image for kyle
Kyle

2383

Forum Posts

6307

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 12

Edited By Kyle
@calidan777 said:
" You should all read my review when I buy the game Tuesday, I'm gonna give it 5 stars.
 
Disclosure: I am a huge Halo fan, therefore my review will be completely biased. "
OH MY GOD! I am never going to your user page again! MONEY HATS!!
 
Disclosure: I have never been to his user page. And I hate hats.
Avatar image for the8bitnacho
the8bitNacho

2304

Forum Posts

6388

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 28

User Lists: 2

Edited By the8bitNacho
@whatthegeek: Get your motherfucking head out of your ass and stop disregarding the fact that you haven't played the game.  you're what's wrong with the internet.
Avatar image for egads
egads

121

Forum Posts

1

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By egads

Its sad that people are taking issue with GiantBomb getting some much deserved ad revenue.  I dont know if those of you complaining about this know, but Jeff was fired from Gamspot under pressure from Eidos, for his review of Kane and Lynch (which was advertised on the site).  Search Gerstmann Gate on google to find out more.  I dont really know how much more the guy could do to prove his integrity.

Avatar image for whatthegeek
whatthegeek

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By whatthegeek
@Jeff: First off, thanks for acknowledging my concerns - I do genuinely appreciate it. I've done a lot of reading on the topic, and just a heads up - GB would be covered in the new FTC regulations. They've been slowly making tweaks to their truth in advertising guidelines, and when all is said and done, just about any website that runs opinion pieces will be covered. Also, if I were gonna buy a review on a site, I wouldn't buy a five star review on a site that doesn't give out many five star reviews, I'd go for the more believable four out of five - just sayin'.
 
Yea, video game sites advertise video games - duh. There's nothing shocking about that. What I find shocking is that this page on your site is clearly owned by Microsoft. I don't believe you reskinned this page just for shits and giggles when I haven't seen you do it for any other game - maybe I missed something, and if I did, let me know, but as far as I know, this is a first. The reskinning combined with the ad campaign lead to what I feel to be reasonable suspicion. There's a difference between running a banner ad on your site for a product you happen to review, and turning the review page into a giant ad for the product reviewed. The latter looks extremely fishy, while the former looks common place. I'm not saying any of that as an attack - like I said before, I've always respected your work, and the fact that you've acknowledged my concerns directly puts me at ease. I say all of that so you'll have some idea of where my questions came from, and where other people's questions still might be coming from. A more or less favorable review wrapped in an ad looks fishy. It's a bad advertising move for a site praised for honesty and journalistic integrity.  Out of respect for this site, and for your body of work, I'm willing to take what you said above at face value, and put my concerns down. Not everyone who distrusted this review will feel the same.
Avatar image for gregisrad
GregIsRad

191

Forum Posts

328

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By GregIsRad
SOME of you guys are the biggest nancies I've ever seen on the internet.
Avatar image for whatthegeek
whatthegeek

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By whatthegeek
@Kombat:  I actually used to work for a gaming site, and I still get the occasional advance release. Also, there are a lot of broken street dates, and pirated copies floating around - don't assume that because the game isn't out yet, no one has played it.
Avatar image for whatthegeek
whatthegeek

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By whatthegeek

I want to take just a minute and address everyone who's calling me a douchebag in their mind right now for questioning the advertising on this review. It happens entirely too often that companies pay for positive reviews from trusted sites. Probably sites you've all read, and trusted. I've held a few writing gigs, and a while back, I spent some time in marketing - let's just say I know a little bit about what goes on behind the scenes in both industries. When I started asking questions here, I didn't genuinely expect to find out this article had been paid for - in fact, I figured the opposite was true. Nevertheless, I wanted to hear it straight from the horse's mouth - not just for my sake, but for anyone who might be thinking the worst without vocalizing it. This site has a lot of integrity - that's why I read it daily. To someone who doesn't read it daily, and doesn't know Jeff's history, this article would look pretty damning all dressed up in Halo colors with a giant ODST ad at the top. It's not just the ad - it's the reskinning that makes it look suspicious. I guess the point I'm making here is don't just assume the best of anyone. Ask questions when something doesn't look right to you. I asked, and got an honest reply from Jeff himself. That reply addressed my questions and probably the questions of a lot of other people with the entirely wrong idea about this article. Had the article actually been a paid ad, I either wouldn't have gotten a response, or that response would have come written entirely in marketing speak, and it would have skillfully avoided the question. Just remember, not every site you trust is being honest with you - it's nice to know that Giant Bomb is.

Avatar image for aperturesilence
ApertureSilence

1184

Forum Posts

39

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

Edited By ApertureSilence
@whatthegeek said:

" @Kombat:  I actually used to work for a gaming site, and I still get the occasional advance release. Also, there are a lot of broken street dates, and pirated copies floating around - don't assume that because the game isn't out yet, no one has played it. "

 
Links to published work of yours or it didn't happen.
Avatar image for whatthegeek
whatthegeek

79

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By whatthegeek
@MurderByDeath: 
http://checkyourhud.com/category/mike-kurz/
Avatar image for calidan777
calidan777

916

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By calidan777
@whatthegeek: Well the reason I didn't think it was a dishonest review (aside from the fact that I know Jeff wouldn't do that) was because I went and read all the other reviews that went up at the same time as this one. Jeff's review is on par with all the others, ODST seems to be averaging around a "9" right now, and to be honest Jeff's review is a little harsher than the other big site's reviews. So anyone who thinks that the ads mean that the review was paid for are obviously not looking into how the game is doing on other sites. 
 
We the users of the giantbomb are pretty protective of our site and the guys that make the site possible, so when you come on here saying things like "the ads mean the review might have been paid for", it pisses people off. We don't need to hear from Jeff that the review wasn't paid for, we knew that already.
Avatar image for gamer4life
gamer4life

87

Forum Posts

14

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 13

Edited By gamer4life
@calidan777:
You took the words right out of my mouth, well said.  Myself (and im sure many others) come here to giant bomb because we know that these guys are always honest.  It gets me pretty annoyed to hear people accuse them of actually being paid for a review, especially after the whole thing that happened to Jeff at gamespot... 
Avatar image for theineffablebob
TheIneffableBob

254

Forum Posts

264

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 2

Edited By TheIneffableBob

The

 fuck

  • is
  • with
  1. this
  2. custom
  3.  page.
Avatar image for egge
Egge

565

Forum Posts

583

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 4

Edited By Egge

Good summary. Since I don't like the way Bungie makes FPSs, I won't bother with this game.

Avatar image for aperturesilence
ApertureSilence

1184

Forum Posts

39

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

Edited By ApertureSilence
@whatthegeek: I apologize for doubting your claim, but I hope you understand its vagueness made it appear to be quite suspect.
Avatar image for landmine
Landmine

545

Forum Posts

35

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Landmine
@gamer4life said:
" @calidan777: You took the words right out of my mouth, well said.  Myself (and im sure many others) come here to giant bomb because we know that these guys are always honest.  It gets me pretty annoyed to hear people accuse them of actually being paid for a review, especially after the whole thing that happened to Jeff at gamespot...  "
I concur.
Avatar image for kitsune_conundrum
kitsune_conundrum

1240

Forum Posts

1608

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Disclosure: This should become an internet meme.
Avatar image for kitsune_conundrum
kitsune_conundrum

1240

Forum Posts

1608

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Disclosure: This should become an internet meme.
Avatar image for wintersnowblind
WinterSnowblind

7599

Forum Posts

41

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By WinterSnowblind

For those who think they were paid off for this review.. 
Leave the site.  It would be a better place without you guys.

Avatar image for s-a-n-jr
s-a-n-JR

3256

Forum Posts

2993

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 15

Edited By s-a-n-JR

Anyone who thinks GB would ever sell out and give false high scores is a fucking moron. 
 
Anyway, game looks pretty cool. Too bad i don't have a 360.
Avatar image for mariussmit
mariussmit

297

Forum Posts

349

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 36

User Lists: 4

Edited By mariussmit
@whatthegeek: It really seems as if you are putting 2 and 2 together and getting 5. Yes the page is skinned and yes they ran Halo ads and thus the disclaimer at the bottom. But that is the advertising side of things, why does it have anything to do with the review and the review score? For all intents and purposes this page could have been skinned in a way that proclaims ODST as the best entertainment experience in the history of all creation and that wouldn't change the words inside Jeff's review or the score he gave. 
 
So take the advertising as advertising and read the review as a review and guess what - all your problems go away.
Avatar image for johnnymcmillen
JohnnyMcmillen

159

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By JohnnyMcmillen

Guys, this is Jess reviewing this, you know what he did at gamespot and how it has turned out for him now, if he didn't like it he wouldn't review it high. I trust him for his honest opinion, just because for some legal reason (or a matter or personal pride) made him put it there, doesn't mean it effected the review.

Avatar image for death_burnout
Death_Burnout

3847

Forum Posts

1617

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 5

User Lists: 6

Edited By Death_Burnout
@WinterSnowblind said:

" For those who think they were paid off for this review..  Leave the site.  It would be a better place without you guys. "

YES! exactly, this site has been borerline horrible since we have had people like that, but, its the internet, and theres nothing i can do about it.
 
Edit: fuck it, it's been all the way horrible for what? 8 or 9 months?
Avatar image for wintersnowblind
WinterSnowblind

7599

Forum Posts

41

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By WinterSnowblind

More on topic with the game..  I'm happy to finally see more single player content being added for FPS, usually we see nothing but multiplayer maps, so this is nice even it's being released as a stand alone game.
 
I've also never bothered to buy any of the multiplayer maps, so getting them all for free here is a bargain.  It's also a bit of a joke to see so many European sites marking down the game because of it's price, considering the game is only £30/€45 over here.  Seems like they're just leaning on the excuses other people are using..
 
But it seems the story is intended a little more for the really hardcore Halo fans, that know the ins and outs of Reach, Harvest and things like ONI, so I'm not surprised to see some of the more casual fans getting a bit lost.

Avatar image for electrichaggis
ElectricHaggis

626

Forum Posts

1723

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

Edited By ElectricHaggis

Nice review Jeff.  I'll probably pick this up at the end of next week.