Something went wrong. Try again later

Giant Bomb Review

440 Comments

Halo: Reach Review

4
  • X360

Reach's expanded multiplayer component offers a huge amount of variety that will keep Halo fans going for a good, long time.


 The Spartans have changed, but the game remains the same: shoot grunts in the face.
 The Spartans have changed, but the game remains the same: shoot grunts in the face.
Halo: Reach is exactly the kind of game that Bungie has gotten great at building over the last two generations of console hardware. It's a Halo game through and through, with the same style and pacing that you've come to expect, but with a new cast of characters that are worth paying attention to and a multiplayer mode that has more variety than it's ever had before. It's not going to change your mind about Halo, but this special delivery for fans of the franchise is a great send-off as Bungie ends its involvement with the franchise to go work on something new.

Halo: Reach is a prequel to the first game in the series, providing some perspective on events that take place just before the opening of Halo: Combat Evolved. It also provides some perspective that isn't found in the book upon which these events are based, Halo: The Fall of Reach. So while you'll probably already know that things are about to go very, very bad on the planet called Reach, you don't know the specifics about how the attack went down. The story focuses more on a group of six Spartans called Noble Team, who encounters Covenant forces on the planet, immediately sending the entire world into chaos. You'll play as a Spartan referred to as Noble Six throughout the game. Six's shadowy past paints him as something of a lone wolf bad-ass in the Master Chief mold, but Six is new to the team, so you'll be paired up with and taking orders from the rest of your unit as you work your way from one conflict to the next. Though the constant conflict doesn't leave much time for the other five members of Noble Team to get personal, most of the characters manage to be interesting, which makes the story work well enough to keep it engaging.

If you've played just about any of the previous Halo shooters, you won't be too surprised by what you find in Reach. The pacing, structure, and most of the equipment have popped up in the previous games. Bungie didn't go "reinvent the Assault Rifle" or anything silly like that. And unlike its past game, Halo 3: ODST, Reach returns to a more conventional format, moving you directly from level to level without any sort of hub world. Though you'll often be teamed up with one or more of the other Spartans from your team, the gameplay doesn't really change as a result. They behave just like any other AI in the game, shooting when appropriate and automatically teleporting up to you at checkpoints if you decide to leave them behind. It might have been nice--and would have driven home the unique nature of Noble Team--if those guys were integrated more tightly into the action. The story does take a couple of twists, though, setting up some interesting vehicle sequences and some bits that are slightly more open-ended than Halo games have been, traditionally speaking.

 Unlike the Master Chief, these Noble guys will let you see their faces.
 Unlike the Master Chief, these Noble guys will let you see their faces.
Depending on which difficulty setting you choose--Bungie is again recommending that experienced players start on the second-highest difficulty setting, Heroic--and your own personal skill, Halo: Reach's solo campaign will probably land somewhere between seven and 12 hours. Though I've certainly appreciated the last couple of shooters in the series, by the end of Reach's campaign I found myself rushing past some encounters, hoping to skate to the next checkpoint without doing as much fighting. The combat is very similar to previous Halo games, and I feel like the last level or two drag a bit when compared to the rest of the game. It's too bad, too, because that's when the story starts to become familiar, as it begins to tie into things you'll probably remember from previous Halo games.

Rushing past those encounters is enabled by the game's new armor abilities. These are slotted and swapped out just like a weapon, though you can hit the left bumper to activate your currently equipped ability. The default ability is a sprint, which is great, especially if you're the sort of person that wishes that Halo had a slightly faster pace. You can't run forever, though. All of the abilities have a meter that drains when activated and takes a bit of time to recharge. In the campaign, you'll occasionally find other armor abilities out in the field, allowing you to swap out the sprint for a jetpack, a cloaking device, a couple of different shield options, and so on. These armor abilities also factor into the game's multiplayer.

OK, multiplayer. It's kind of a big deal in the Halo universe, right? In Reach, the options and abilities have grown quite a bit. Campaign co-op is still there for up to four players and can be played with or without scoring. It's also supported by the game's matchmaking features, allowing you to play through the campaign with strangers. For those of you without a bunch of Halo-loving friends who want to get a team together, this is a terrific addition. Matchmaking has also come to Firefight, the wave-based survival mode introduced in ODST. That's a great enhancement, too, but it's not the only thing going on with Firefight.

The default mode has changed a bit to make it more inviting overall, but it's what you can do with the addition of custom variants that makes Firefight so much more interesting. Much like Halo 3's multiplayer, you can tweak a ton of different things to make modes that feel very different from the default. If you'd like, you can enable generators that must be protected from the incoming Covenant forces. You can set which types of enemies come at you in every wave, or tweak your starting health, or alter damage modifiers on weapons and health... essentially, you can make it completely impossible, mind-numbingly easy, or just about anything in-between. Incidentally, making it incredibly easy is handy if you're the sort of person who wants to get some of Halo: Reach's Firefight achievements without breaking a sweat. The Firefight maps in Reach also feel more interesting than most of the arenas and other maps found in ODST.

 Forge mode has been expanded and a new Forge World map is ready for you to lay down all kinds of structures to build your own maps.
 Forge mode has been expanded and a new Forge World map is ready for you to lay down all kinds of structures to build your own maps.
The rest of Reach's multiplayer package builds on that game variant creation stuff that Halo 3 introduced, which is made deeper by the addition of new modes and options. Now, with the inclusion of armor abilities, you select a loadout before spawning. Loadouts are determined by gametype, and you can build (or restrict) custom loadouts when creating a game variant. So if you want everyone to have jet-packs and hammers, you can totally do that. The game also codifies the race mode that users created out of the VIP gametype back in Halo 3 and adds a new multi-tiered match called Invasion, where Spartans and Elites go at it in an objective-based match that puts one team on offense and the other on defense. Matchmaking lets users vote on the next map, rather than just vetoing whatever the current choice is, and the whole thing feels smoother than it's been in the past, whether you're looking to group up with friends or find strange corpses to duck over. Regardless of how you feel about the way Halo games play online or the community of foul-mouthed hooligans it stereotypically draws (though a new "psych profile" feature attempts to match you up with "polite" players, if that's your thing), the feature-set and options when configuring and getting into a game are completely unmatched in the world of console shooters.

Visually, the game looks sharper and has better texture clarity than its predecessors, though the frame rate can get a little unstable, particularly during the game's real-time cutscenes. It's nice that those cutscenes are being rendered on the fly, though, since you're constantly earning credits that can be used to buy various armor add-ons. They're totally cosmetic, but it's neat to be able to pick up new helmets, shoulder pads, chest plates, and so on as you play, and this helps you make your Noble Six a little more personal. You can also purchase additional voices to be used in Firefight mode, and these include the cast of Reach as well as some throwbacks from previous Halo games.

 The multiplayer maps offer a good variety of small and large areas.
 The multiplayer maps offer a good variety of small and large areas.
Most of those voices are really good, and Noble Team is especially full of quality voice actors, though they don't necessarily speak all that often in the grand scheme of things. The music, as you might expect, flips some of the common Halo themes in bits and pieces, but it's mostly an all-new soundtrack that fits right in with the look and feel of the action.

When taken with the appropriate context--namely, that the game's original developer is saying goodbye to the series and passing it off to a new team--Halo: Reach feels like a wholly appropriate stopping point for the series, filling out some more of the relevant fiction that surrounds the core trilogy while building the multiplayer out in such a way that Halo fans will have something to play until whatever's next is ready for release. While I do feel that the formula has worn thin in a few spots, Reach feels like a love letter from the developer to its fans. If you're one of those fans, you should have this game.
Jeff Gerstmann on Google+

440 Comments

Avatar image for ratinho
Ratinho

89

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Ratinho

Good to see lots of absolute spastics monging out over a review of a game that's got a very good write up and high score, that 95% of them haven't played yet, and comparing it to a future score of a game that nobody has reviewed and none of them have played yet (Black Ops).
 
It's how i like my internets. Hot and cold running moron on tap.

Avatar image for fur1ousapollo
Fur1ousApollo

53

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By Fur1ousApollo

Not that a 4 out of 5 stars bothers me. It really doesn't as its a good score but this sites 5 star rating leaves little for accuracy and I am sure if this was a 10 scale would have been a 9.
 
But the fact that Modern Warfare 2 is given 5 and is a refinement to that series does raise some questions for me. Modern Warfare 2 was not a 5 star game in my opinion.

Avatar image for cloudenvy
Cloudenvy

5896

Forum Posts

8

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Cloudenvy
@Ratinho:  
I know, it's glorious.
Avatar image for borgmaster
borgmaster

843

Forum Posts

908

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 24

Edited By borgmaster
@Aviados said:
" @Death_Unicorn said:
" Four stars does not equal a score of eight. They didn't go for a scoring system with numbers because they felt it was flawed. Four stars communicates that the game is really good, but will not be enjoyed by everyone i.e. non-halo fans. Essentially, it's an extremely well built game but that won't be enjoyed by everyone. Although, that is only my interpretation, showing that the star scale at least gives you some liberty to have an interpretation. "
Starcraft 2 , Limbo , Flower , Trine, Bowser's inside story etc etc... are all niche games(maybe excluding SC2) yet they all received a 5/5? "
Those were all reviewed by Brad, maybe he didn't get the memo. Death_Unicorn's analysis is right for how Jeff does things.
Avatar image for winternet
Winternet

8454

Forum Posts

2255

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By Winternet

You need to stop associate numbers or percentages to the stars and start associate words. 4 star equals a very good game but which can't, for whatever reason, reach higher grounds. 5 stars is a great game all around. 3 stars is a decent game. 2 stars is a bad game but has some interesting ideas. 1 star is just bad. I mean, bad!
 
But hey, this is the way I read the stars. How do you read the stars?

Avatar image for winternet
Winternet

8454

Forum Posts

2255

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By Winternet
@borgmaster said:
" @Aviados said:
" @Death_Unicorn said:
" Four stars does not equal a score of eight. They didn't go for a scoring system with numbers because they felt it was flawed. Four stars communicates that the game is really good, but will not be enjoyed by everyone i.e. non-halo fans. Essentially, it's an extremely well built game but that won't be enjoyed by everyone. Although, that is only my interpretation, showing that the star scale at least gives you some liberty to have an interpretation. "
Starcraft 2 , Limbo , Flower , Trine, Bowser's inside story etc etc... are all niche games(maybe excluding SC2) yet they all received a 5/5? "
Those were all reviewed by Brad, maybe he didn't get the memo. Death_Unicorn's analysis is right for how Jeff does things. "
I don't agree. I think the score just reflects on the game. I don't like some 5 stars games and I like 2 stars game. What people like or don't like doesn't have anything to do with a 4 or a 5. Halo Reach didn't get a 4 stars just because non-halo fans won't like the game.
Avatar image for one_2nd
one_2nd

2388

Forum Posts

246

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 4

Edited By one_2nd

lawl

Avatar image for theblindchessman
TheBlindChessman

250

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheBlindChessman
@Ratinho said:
" Good to see lots of absolute spastics monging out over a review of a game that's got a very good write up and high score, that 95% of them haven't played yet, and comparing it to a future score of a game that nobody has reviewed and none of them have played yet (Black Ops). It's how i like my internets. Hot and cold running moron on tap. "
How dare you say that. It's Scope now, not Spastics.
Avatar image for epicsteve
EpicSteve

6908

Forum Posts

13016

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 89

User Lists: 11

Edited By EpicSteve

Looking forward to it!

Avatar image for stahlbrand
Stahlbrand

905

Forum Posts

24

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 9

Edited By Stahlbrand

Reach may be where I get back on the Halo train after I finished Halo 2 and ignored all subsequent games in the series.  I think it would hit the spot about now, and it seems like the event game of the season, given that I have no desire to play CoD BO.

Avatar image for a_wet_shamwow
A_Wet_Shamwow

235

Forum Posts

428

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By A_Wet_Shamwow
@Death_Unicorn said:
" Four stars does not equal a score of eight. They didn't go for a scoring system with numbers because they felt it was flawed. Four stars communicates that the game is really good, but will not be enjoyed by everyone i.e. non-halo fans. Essentially, it's an extremely well built game but that won't be enjoyed by everyone. Although, that is only my interpretation, showing that the star scale at least gives you some liberty to have an interpretation. "
Never thought of it that way but it makes infinitely more sense that it got four stars because this is only for halo fans. Thanks for the clarification.
Avatar image for plasma
Plasma

968

Forum Posts

300

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Plasma

You might think that 5 star system is 'better', but we live in a world where metacritic is very important. This review system is much more flawed than a 10 point system. Stop thinking your smarter than everyone else, just add half stars. 

Avatar image for coleslaw893
Coleslaw893

459

Forum Posts

226

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 17

Edited By Coleslaw893

Rock on Jeff.
 
Pre-ordered it from Amazon, but my 360 got the RROD (again), so I wont be able to play it for a few weeks. :(

Avatar image for hitchenson
Hitchenson

4708

Forum Posts

121

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Hitchenson
@Plasma said:
" You might think that 5 star system is 'better', but we live in a world where metacritic is very important. This review system is much more flawed than a 10 point system. Stop thinking your smarter than everyone else, just add half stars.  "
It saddens me that some people actually think this.
Avatar image for vorbis
Vorbis

2762

Forum Posts

967

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 11

Edited By Vorbis

I was hoping this game would be more like the first Halo, the only one I actually enjoyed. Still, know a few who will let me jump in for some splitscreen co-op.

Avatar image for theberserker
theberserker

225

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By theberserker

2 more days....

Avatar image for unsolvedparadox
unsolvedparadox

2298

Forum Posts

31

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 2

Edited By unsolvedparadox

I really enjoyed the beta, this will be a mainstay in my 360 for years to come. Hope a Video Review will be coming out for this too, Jeff!

Avatar image for bigchief
bigchief

513

Forum Posts

784

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 7

Edited By bigchief
@Hitchenson said:
" @Plasma said:
" You might think that 5 star system is 'better', but we live in a world where metacritic is very important. This review system is much more flawed than a 10 point system. Stop thinking your smarter than everyone else, just add half stars.  "
It saddens me that some people actually think this. "
Yeah, who really cares or makes their decisions based on metacritic? I'd rather not see Giant Bomb change anything just for the sake of metacritic. Their rating system is doing exactly what it should: give a brief snapshot of their opinions on the game. Anything else should be contained in the review text. Honestly, I feel that most systems have too many degrees. The difference between a rating of 8 or 9 isn't all that significant or important, especially since it's all just one person's opinion anyway.
Avatar image for repulsar
Repulsar

8

Forum Posts

5

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By Repulsar

4 out of 5 stars? WTF?

Avatar image for zombie2011
zombie2011

5628

Forum Posts

8742

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By zombie2011

This game is gonna be so good, i can't wait to hear the music.

Avatar image for colinwright
ColinWright

755

Forum Posts

33

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 8

Edited By ColinWright

Goddammit, these comments are the exact reason CGW got rid of review scores back in the day.

Avatar image for oliveshark
oliveshark

55

Forum Posts

9

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By oliveshark
@Zereta: I'm sure if you read the reviews you understand the different reasons that these different games got the same scores on a rating system from 0-5.
Avatar image for oliveshark
oliveshark

55

Forum Posts

9

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By oliveshark
@Plasma: All these systems could be equal if people actually read the reviews. The rating tells you nothing unless you read the reasoning for the score. 
Avatar image for mr_jpeps
Mr_JPeps

189

Forum Posts

80

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 3

Edited By Mr_JPeps

Great review Jeff! Idiots bitching about review scores are idiots.

Avatar image for tapsoda
tapsoda

46

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By tapsoda

No 4 and a half stars? I don't think you justified taking it down a star.

Avatar image for jos1ah
jos1ah

333

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By jos1ah

Too bad they don't let you "shoot down UAVs".  This game could've been a 5.  har har har
Avatar image for jos1ah
jos1ah

333

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By jos1ah
@Djnardu:
But dude....In MW2 you can shoot. down. UAVs.
Avatar image for brendan
Brendan

9414

Forum Posts

533

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 7

Edited By Brendan
@Plasma said:

"You might think that 5 star system is 'better', but we live in a world where metacritic is very important. This review system is much more flawed than a 10 point system. Stop thinking your smarter than everyone else, just add half stars.  "


You do know that stars are not a numerical scoring system, right?  This sums it up best: 
 
@Death_Unicorn said:

" Four stars does not equal a score of eight. They didn't go for a scoring system with numbers because they felt it was flawed. Four stars communicates that the game is really good, but will not be enjoyed by everyone i.e. non-halo fans. Essentially, it's an extremely well built game but that won't be enjoyed by everyone. Although, that is only my interpretation, showing that the star scale at least gives you some liberty to have an interpretation. "
 

   
Avatar image for supersecretagenda
SuperSecretAgenda

689

Forum Posts

172

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

To be honest, this read like a five-star review to me.

Avatar image for pcguy2
pcguy2

86

Forum Posts

35

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By pcguy2

best game evar

Avatar image for lind_l_taylor
Lind_L_Taylor

4125

Forum Posts

6

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

Edited By Lind_L_Taylor

Great review. Surprised not a 5.
 
Although I skipped Halo:ODST, I think I'll be picking up
Reach. I may go ahead & fill out the pre-order & start
playing it this week (& also scoop up Halo:ODST for
later play, also have Halo Wars sitting on the shelf
waiting for play also).

Avatar image for theblinddead
TheBlindDead

7

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By TheBlindDead

I was a little bit on the fence with this game before, I didn't care much for ODST. However, after reading the review and watching the quicklook I'm going to pick this up.

Avatar image for gordjt
gordjt

38

Forum Posts

370

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 2

Edited By gordjt
@tapsoda said:
" No 4 and a half stars? I don't think you justified taking it down a star. "
Are you serious?  I hope this is a joke.
Avatar image for slimdogg95
SlimDogg95

86

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By SlimDogg95

Can't Wait!!! Firefight is the main draw for me. Followed by SP. I'll prob even partake in MP more then I use to. Just because I actually had fun in the beta.

Avatar image for death_unicorn
Death_Unicorn

2879

Forum Posts

12136

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 6

Edited By Death_Unicorn

In essence, 4 stars =/= bad game, whatsoever. It's more in line of THIS IS A REALLY GOOD GAME!

Avatar image for horhaypi
horhaypi

4

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By horhaypi

 This is hilarioius. The overeaction of the giantbomb community. Not the overreaction from the fans trying to argue why Jeff gave a low score but to the fans that are defending the review and it's process. It seems there's like 20 replies about how Giantbomb community is dumb if you disagree with his scores and that they're idiots for not understanding the complexity  of the reviewing process.  People will disagree on the score but there's no reason to just keep attacking them unless it's a unsubstantial comment. 

Avatar image for duffyside
Duffyside

959

Forum Posts

96

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 14

Edited By Duffyside

I wonder if Jeff would say that the Halo franchise is becoming stale in the same way the Zelda franchise is. That's certainly how I feel.

Avatar image for supersecretagenda
SuperSecretAgenda

689

Forum Posts

172

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

What truly boggles my mind is Jeff's apparent reasoning for its four star review. IE:...
 
'It's just another Halo game'.
 
What kinda fuckin' excuse is that?
 
'It's just another Call of Duty game'
 'It's just another Starcraft game'
'It's just another platformer'
'It's just another indie game'
 
Man! We're going to have four star reviews left and right with this great system!

Avatar image for habearu
Habearu

22

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Habearu

At least it didn't get five stars, but halo 3 did....i'm just a little confused on the bad games better rating thing, but maybe it's just me.

Avatar image for starklight
Starklight

68

Forum Posts

92

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By Starklight

I am offended that Jeff's opinion after actually playing the game does not match my opinion after never playing the game. He should always put down exactly the scores I want and not do what he is paid to do and state his opinion on games. I am never going to subscribe and leave giantbomb forever because Jeff expressed his opinion. [/sarcasm]
 
In all seriousness, no one here has any right to dispute Jeff's review until they've played the game themselves. And even then, they only earn the right to "personally disagree" with the review.
 
Newsflash, opinions are subjective, and cannot be right or wrong.

Avatar image for nrain
nrain

1302

Forum Posts

9

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By nrain

I am a fan and I shall have this game!

Avatar image for deactivated-5e851fc84effd
deactivated-5e851fc84effd

1714

Forum Posts

53

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

@ChickenPants said:
" @CrazyBagMan said:
" Why so low?  <> "
It's summertime! "
What's gon' sell? Coke, pepi, Fito lay! They'll pay us monay!
Avatar image for drlove
DrLove

449

Forum Posts

37

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 1

Edited By DrLove
@horhaypi said:
"  This is hilarioius. The overeaction of the giantbomb community. Not the overreaction from the fans trying to argue why Jeff gave a low score but to the fans that are defending the review and it's process. It seems there's like 20 replies about how Giantbomb community is dumb if you disagree with his scores and that they're idiots for not understanding the complexity  of the reviewing process.  People will disagree on the score but there's no reason to just keep attacking them unless it's a unsubstantial comment.  "
this
Avatar image for norsedudetr
norsedudetr

467

Forum Posts

330

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 5

Edited By norsedudetr

I like that Jeff has an actual playthrough time ESTIMATE. 7-12 hrs takes into account slow ass players like me, YAY!

Avatar image for wolverine
Wolverine

4642

Forum Posts

3776

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 3

Edited By Wolverine

The multiplayer beta was a real turn off for me. I didn't like the armor abilities. Similar abilities would work fine in most first person shooters but not in a game like Halo.

Avatar image for spacepenguin
SpacePenguin

497

Forum Posts

425

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By SpacePenguin

I cant believe people are complaining about a 4/5 stars... 4/5 is almost a perfect game, giving it that means it is a very good game.

Avatar image for hydraham
HydraHam

1380

Forum Posts

675

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 6

Edited By HydraHam
@wfolse1 said:
" Score doesn't surprise me, especially after Jeff's particularly embarrassing preview write up of the game a few weeks ago.  Also, The GB crew are the kind of guys to get all frothy about Modern Warfare 2 and not really get as excited about Halo.  Very excited for Tuesday. "
Can you blame them? COW and Halo haven't really been doing anything for the genre it's basically the same game every time with a few new additions, i love  halo and the COD franchise as the next guy but lets face it they aren't exactly reinventing the wheel every game it's like madden.. same game with touched up graphics and a few new addictions, out of all the 9.5/10, 10/10 reviews i found this one to be the most honest and this is why i love GB, this game IMHO is what ODST should of been and hopefully after reach they put down the halo franchise for awhile i don't want them to keep milking it.
Avatar image for michaelbach
MichaelBach

975

Forum Posts

75

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By MichaelBach

Great review Jeff, you convinced me to get it, the multi player sounds like tons of fun! 
 
- Thanks!

Avatar image for michaelbach
MichaelBach

975

Forum Posts

75

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By MichaelBach
@SpacePenguin said:
" I cant believe people are complaining about a 4/5 stars... 4/5 is almost a perfect game, giving it that means it is a very good game. "
Agreed! Great score, great review :)
Avatar image for cefka
Cefka

38

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Cefka

Great review! I have to bring it up though... 4 stars? IGN US gave 9.5, IGN UK gave it 10.0. I can't see any overly negative things mentioned in Jeffs review. I know it's subjective and it really doesn't matter that much, but I just wonder what a game needs to achieve to get 5 stars. Has Jeff given 5 stars to any game?  It would  have actually been helpful if Jeff mentioned why it fell short of 5 stars, that would have been informative.
 
I must say that I still think IGN has the best reviews and the best scoring system. But I always read GB since they have a slightly different perspective and very informative reviews. They often describe important details which other sites don't mention.
 
Anyways, Jeff's 4 stars will not change the sales of this game it will just fuel some fanboy rage.