Zero Punctuation: Halo: Reach

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT
 

starwarsgeek:
Don't want to discuss multiplayer? Fine. Unprofessional to ignore a key component of the game, but fine...
But why not even mention Forge, Firefight, or Theater? Do those suddenly require backup?

You named it...key component.
Why do games have to be based on Multiplayer nowadays?
I remember when Multiplayer was a GIMMICK! A nifty thing to throw in.
Those games usually had far better and far LONGER campaigns too, because not so much money was invested in the Multiplayer.
Now itīs like "so we have the Multiplayer down...we use what is left over and tack on a campaign mode..."
Besides, we all know the Multiplayer experience can be quite the most annoying part EVER since so many moms buy those games for their kids...
You see, a truely good game doesnīt need Multiplayer, and a mediocre game isnīt gonna be saved by a good Multiplayer.
I would have liked if more money flew into the Singleplayer of Halo and Modern Warfare, making them longer and with better Storys or something, introducing more mechanics and stuff like that.

Because atleast I donīt buy games for the Multiplayer...

You had me at meta cunt <3
oh and you listed every single reason why non meta cunts should not buy the game.

Ha ha, Gay-lo: Reach Around!

Oops, sorry, spoiled the review...

Couldn't he have reviewed the other non-multiplayer modes I think the game has?

Chrinik:

starwarsgeek:
Don't want to discuss multiplayer? Fine. Unprofessional to ignore a key component of the game, but fine...
But why not even mention Forge, Firefight, or Theater? Do those suddenly require backup?

You named it...key component.
Why do games have to be based on Multiplayer nowadays?
I remember when Multiplayer was a GIMMICK! A nifty thing to throw in.
Those games usually had far better and far LONGER campaigns too, because not so much money was invested in the Multiplayer.
Now itīs like "so we have the Multiplayer down...we use what is left over and tack on a campaign mode..."
Besides, we all know the Multiplayer experience can be quite the most annoying part EVER since so many moms buy those games for their kids...
You see, a truely good game doesnīt need Multiplayer, and a mediocre game isnīt gonna be saved by a good Multiplayer.
I would have liked if more money flew into the Singleplayer of Halo and Modern Warfare, making them longer and with better Storys or something, introducing more mechanics and stuff like that.

Because atleast I donīt buy games for the Multiplayer...

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if this was directed at me or if my post was just a launch-pad for your anti-multiplayer rant. Anyway, it's all about variety (and I will never understand why people on this website, the supposed intellectual community for gamers, hate variety so much). Why is it bad that there are games based on multiplayer? I love Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead/L4D2, Mario Kart, Mario Party, and Smash Bros. Focusing on multiplayer does not lower the quality of the game; anyone who says this is simply wrong. There is a difference between having a personal preference and arguing that everything that does not fit it is bad.

Haha, I rationalized the lack of seatbelts by assuming their robo-armours had magnetic boots for outer space, that bugged me though.

I never play XBOX online either but I like this game for couch co-op. It's got a lot of features, despite ten year old gameplay.

starwarsgeek:
I'm sorry, I'm not sure if this was directed at me or if my post was just a launch-pad for your anti-multiplayer rant. Anyway, it's all about variety (and I will never understand why people on this website, the supposed intellectual community for gamers, hate variety so much). Why is it bad that there are games based on multiplayer? I love Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead/L4D2, Mario Kart, Mario Party, and Smash Bros. Focusing on multiplayer does not lower the quality of the game; anyone who says this is simply wrong. There is a difference between having a personal preference and arguing that everything that does not fit it is bad.

There he goes an names games that are the complete opposite premise...
Of course you do not make a Mario Party and base it around being alone!
But these are exeptions...everything you named is an exeption.
Even some Racing games arenīt meant for Multiplayer, since the developers go to great lenghts developing challeging AI opponents for your carrier mode.

The games I meant, are SOLD on their Story and epic action throughout the campaign, but instead focus on the Multiplayer, because THAT is the only reason these games sell well...and if something sells well, you milk it...
Variety my ass.

Imagine Left4Dead being marketed as "the most awesome COOP Zombie survivalshooter!" and then the matchmaking is all fucked, it laggs all the time, the enemies are imbalanced, because the developers put their money into developing a funny Single Player story, and casted expensive voice actors for the 90 minute Cutscenes...

You see, I donīt say basing games on multiplayer is bad...Itīs the false advertising.
Itīs like I advertise to you, a shiney sportscar, and then spend all the interior money on more engine power before I sold it to you.

ninonybox360:
oh shit he did do it...and he...slightly enjoyed it.....well Yahtzee you have shoved your dick into my skull and completely fucked my mind.

Slightly enough to hate it not loath it.

Chrinik:

There he goes an names games that are the complete opposite premise...
Of course you do not make a Mario Party and base it around being alone!
But these are exeptions...everything you named is an exeption.
Even some Racing games arenīt meant for Multiplayer, since the developers go to great lenghts developing challeging AI opponents for your carrier mode.

The games I meant, are SOLD on their Story and epic action throughout the campaign, but instead focus on the Multiplayer, because THAT is the only reason these games sell well...and if something sells well, you milk it...
Variety my ass.

Imagine Left4Dead being marketed as "the most awesome COOP Zombie survivalshooter!" and then the matchmaking is all fucked, it laggs all the time, the enemies are imbalanced, because the developers put their money into developing a funny Single Player story, and casted expensive voice actors for the 90 minute Cutscenes...

My appologies. Your previous rant appeared to be directed at multiplayer games in general, not just ones that have an added single-player mode so you can continue to enjoy them alone.

The problem with your argument is that Halo is, at its core, a multiplayer game--it is not sold on its story; the multiplayer is the reason Combat Evolved was a hit. It belongs in the same list as those others. I could buy Smash Bros, Mario Kart, or Mario Party soley for playing the bots, and I would probably be just as disappointed as someone who buys Halo just to play the campaign alone. The possibility of single-play does not change the fact that these are multiplayer games.

starwarsgeek:
snip

Well, they TURNED into multiplayer games BECAUSE the multiplayer proofed to sell better then a compelling single player experience.
Like the Call of Duty or Medal of Honor franchises...

Chrinik:

Well, they TURNED into multiplayer games BECAUSE the multiplayer proofed to sell better then a compelling single player experience.
Like the Call of Duty or Medal of Honor franchises...

The only single-player-only mode in the entire series is the campaign from Halo Wars. Even back in combat evolved, you could chose to play the campaign either single-player or co-op. They are multiplayer games with a story, and that is not a bad thing.

Edit: And I guess the books were only meant for one user as well ;)

If the game is pure multi-player its a different argument

DarkKnightBob:
If the game is pure multi-player its a different argument

So, by removing the single-player option, you improve the game?

RexoftheFord:
You missed the point of me basically saying the game modes of Forge and Firefight are nothing more than a hyped up gimmick, and face it, those modes have been done before and way better than Halo could do. Note: Plants vs. Zombies hold out against hordes of enemies with a limited arsenal at your disposal. With Forge see Little Big Planet for PS3. And you're right about the changes in gameplay, I can no longer wield akimbo weapons (or dual wield) with pinpoint accuracy like before. The only aspect I found took away some of the seriousness (lol serious lol) of Halo. But whatever, no use arguing with a fanboy. Even though I've played all the Halo games, I apparently know nothing about them. So -yawn- I guess I'm done here. Maybe I'll go play some roller coaster tycoon and pretend it's Forge but with theme parks and...fun.

And the best way to show that something is a hyped up gimmick is to say that they're like games which are very fun to play? Can you really not see the difference between a first person arena based shooter which is designed for multiple players and a turret defence game? But of course, they both have waves of enemies and limited resources, they are exactly the same! No wonder people complain about how generic games have become when you only need a link as tenuous as this to say two things are the same!

It's also more than a little irrelevant that a game from a completely different genre has a better level editor. You get completely different experiences out of using them, so what does it matter if when one's better than the other when they are in no way competing with each other.

And oh yes, I am a fanboy of Halo. That therefore means that all my arguments on the subject are invalid on account of the fact that I enjoy it.

PS. I never said you know nothing about the games (other than a possible reason to explain your statement). I was merely questioning your utterly broken logic.

Wow, he liked it. Shocking.

Nice callback at the end, too. And a sequel to Oni would be awesome. I love that game!

I'm quite glad Yahtzee pointed out something I happen to believe in - Halo is, in fact, not a generic FPS, because the standard of "generic FPS" is cover-based ironsights CoD-and-clones. So thank you, Yahtzee, for throwing what I consider to be a good bit of perceptiveness into your review.

starwarsgeek:

The problem with your argument is that Halo is, at its core, a multiplayer game--it is not sold on its story; the multiplayer is the reason Combat Evolved was a hit. It belongs in the same list as those others. I could buy Smash Bros, Mario Kart, or Mario Party soley for playing the bots, and I would probably be just as disappointed as someone who buys Halo just to play the campaign alone. The possibility of single-play does not change the fact that these are multiplayer games.

So, that huge marketing campaign telling us to "Remember Reach" was all about... multiplayer?

I'm sorry, it's being sold as a single player game, otherwise they would have called it Halo Tournament. I understand that Halo (like many previous games) have enduring popularity because of the mutltiplayer, which adds an enormous amount of longevity to a game. And that's the reason why most games these days put in some sort of multiplayer content (anything to help justify that $50 purchase). But they're not just dumping a half-ass single player campaign on us. They've been hiring big stars to voice a long, complex story.

And if you look at the gushing reviews, most of the critics site the single player campaign as a good reason to buy the game. They even release tons of tie-in books to flesh out the story, so, obviously, the Halo mythos is very, very, very important to the folks at Microsoft. Ergo, this is not a multiplayer game masquerading as a single player game and it's not much of a stretch for a critic to judge is solely on its single player game.

As for the Firefight mode? I've played a few games that offered it up as an option (was that one of the modes in UT 2004?). It is what it is. It's fun, but like the Challenge missions in Arkham Asylum or the race modes in Mirror's Edge, a lot of gamers are going to open it up, poke at them for an hour or so, then forget they ever existed.

Azaraxzealot:
i honestly thought he was gonna be more harsh on this... i found the campaign to be just as if not MORE frustrating... cant wait for Bulletstorm to bring back the badass

on another note he didn't mention the Firefight mode, which CAN be played single-player and it works just fine.

EDIT:

JaredXE:
I am frankly amazed that Yahtzee did this, considering how bleh he was about Halo 3 and Halo Wars.

Also, I LIKED Oni.

they made a reference to Oni in the campaign (Oni Sword Base was a place you could fight)

ONI, as it is spelled, actually stands for Office of Naval Intelligence, and I don't think it's a reference so much as a coincidence since they have mentioned ONI since The Fall of reach novel which released like 8 months after the game Oni.

OT: I'm surprised as hell that he kind of sort of liked this game. I, as a Halo fan, was ready for him to rip it to shreds. Thanks Ben!

Netrigan:

So, that huge marketing campaign telling us to "Remember Reach" was all about... multiplayer?

I'm sorry, it's being sold as a single player game, otherwise they would have called it Halo Tournament. I understand that Halo (like many previous games) have enduring popularity because of the mutltiplayer, which adds an enormous amount of longevity to a game. And that's the reason why most games these days put in some sort of multiplayer content (anything to help justify that $50 purchase). But they're not just dumping a half-ass single player campaign on us. They've been hiring big stars to voice a long, complex story.

And if you look at the gushing reviews, most of the critics site the single player campaign as a good reason to buy the game. They even release tons of tie-in books to flesh out the story, so, obviously, the Halo mythos is very, very, very important to the folks at Microsoft. Ergo, this is not a multiplayer game masquerading as a single player game and it's not much of a stretch for a critic to judge is solely on its single player game.

As for the Firefight mode? I've played a few games that offered it up as an option (was that one of the modes in UT 2004?). It is what it is. It's fun, but like the Challenge missions in Arkham Asylum or the race modes in Mirror's Edge, a lot of gamers are going to open it up, poke at them for an hour or so, then forget they ever existed.

I must not be getting my point across very well, sorry.

I'm not saying that the story and campaign don't belong. What I am saying is that the multiplayer is the biggest draw of the game (it is note-worthy that playing the campaign alone is an option, so even the story mode is not strictly single-player). The series is a great example of allowing either style of play, and neither should be ignored (if I gave the impression that I think the series is worthless without the multiplayer functions, then I must phrased it poorly...that is not what I meant)

And, for my original post that started the discussion, I was simply saying that Yahtzee--a professional who is getting paid to do this--should have a balanced review. He is ignoring well over half the game (Matchmaking/Custom Games, which keeps the fans playing it long after Reach has fallen. Theater mode, one of the greatest machinima tools of all time and a nifty way to save a moment that you want to show to someone later. Forge Mode, a great example of console level editting--which happens to support the custom games and machinima crowds while introducing a completely different type of game mode. Finally, there's Firefight, which I cannot talk about in detail because I haven't tried it myself yet, but I understand it is greatly improved from the ODST version).

As it stands, he's nothing more than someone being paid to troll. He rarely backs up his opinion--which is especially important when he is not showing gameplay while discussing the game. Most of his reviews, especially lately, are nit-picking rants about stuff that's not even important (like no seat belts in Halo, or the plot of Mario Galaxy 2)

starwarsgeek:

And, for my original post that started the discussion, I was simply saying that Yahtzee--a professional who is getting paid to do this--should have a balanced review.

The problem I see here is that if he doesn't care for the MP action, then his review of the MP action will be pretty much worthless. He's made his feeling clear why he dislikes MP, then ignores it.

Yeah, if this were a major game site doing a review, ignoring the MP would be inexcusable, but he's set himself up as a know-it-all smart-mouth who enjoys shitting all over the things you love. Had he ventured forth into the MP content it would be to complain about all the twats that suck the fun out of it by acting like 12 year old racist homophobes... which he pretty much said in-review. If he's not enjoying a turd sandwich, then there's little point of making eat another, related turd sandwich so he has a proper, balanced review of it.

And I think a critic really only has a responsibility to put forth his opinions in a way that the reader/listener can make an informed decision based on it. If you are interested in the multiplayer content more than the single player content, then Yahtzee's review will not help you at all and you should seek out another review. I enjoy reading reviews for games I have (or will never buy) just because they often articulate something I couldn't quite express... but when I'm actively attempting to find out whether a game is for me or not, that requires quite a bit of searching to find someone whose priorities are reasonably close to my own (although quite often, I find the information I want from people's whose priorities are diametrically opposed to my own... like if I hate something and they spend five paragraphs raving about that being in the game, then I know this isn't a game for me). And I think Yahtzee does a pretty good job of defining what he does and does not like in a game for a listener to make an informed decision about whether to ignore his review or not.

And mostly it's for entertainment purposes. It's fun to watch him take the piss out of a game, even ones that I like. But from time to time, his opinion about what makes a game good or bad will be in opposition to your own.

starwarsgeek:

DarkKnightBob:
If the game is pure multi-player its a different argument

So, by removing the single-player option, you improve the game?

so by removing the multi-player you improve the game?

Think back to when CS: 1.xxxx tried adding a single player element. It sucked because the game was a pure multi-player.

That game didn't have a single player to begin with. You can't remove something that isn't there.

whycantibelinus:

Azaraxzealot:
i honestly thought he was gonna be more harsh on this... i found the campaign to be just as if not MORE frustrating... cant wait for Bulletstorm to bring back the badass

on another note he didn't mention the Firefight mode, which CAN be played single-player and it works just fine.

EDIT:

JaredXE:
I am frankly amazed that Yahtzee did this, considering how bleh he was about Halo 3 and Halo Wars.

Also, I LIKED Oni.

they made a reference to Oni in the campaign (Oni Sword Base was a place you could fight)

ONI, as it is spelled, actually stands for Office of Naval Intelligence, and I don't think it's a reference so much as a coincidence since they have mentioned ONI since The Fall of reach novel which released like 8 months after the game Oni.

OT: I'm surprised as hell that he kind of sort of liked this game. I, as a Halo fan, was ready for him to rip it to shreds. Thanks Ben!

well, can't we just pretend it's a reference for the sake of fun? :D

Chrinik:

starwarsgeek:
Don't want to discuss multiplayer? Fine. Unprofessional to ignore a key component of the game, but fine...
But why not even mention Forge, Firefight, or Theater? Do those suddenly require backup?

You named it...key component.
Why do games have to be based on Multiplayer nowadays?
I remember when Multiplayer was a GIMMICK! A nifty thing to throw in.
Those games usually had far better and far LONGER campaigns too, because not so much money was invested in the Multiplayer.
Now itīs like "so we have the Multiplayer down...we use what is left over and tack on a campaign mode..."
Besides, we all know the Multiplayer experience can be quite the most annoying part EVER since so many moms buy those games for their kids...
You see, a truely good game doesnīt need Multiplayer, and a mediocre game isnīt gonna be saved by a good Multiplayer.
I would have liked if more money flew into the Singleplayer of Halo and Modern Warfare, making them longer and with better Storys or something, introducing more mechanics and stuff like that.

Because atleast I donīt buy games for the Multiplayer...

you have a point there, but as someone who has a lot of friends and siblings, buying games that have multiplayer is kind of required, and i think since MOST people have siblings (and not more than one console) it makes sense to buy games with some sort of multiplayer so that they don't keep bugging me every five seconds with "when do i get to play?!!!"

it WOULD be better if i were an only child instead of all games having multiplayer tacked on :(

ironically, a game like Halo's single player campaign could very easily be longer lasting than say Half-Life 2 thanks to...ta da, co-op

I like both series, but due to the financial strain I really can't afford to buy a game full price if it doesn't have co-op (not necessarily online mp)

I am currently eyeing CoD and MoH with RENT written over their covers (the co-op in WaW was meh)

I still think he left out a lot. Considering how much he enjoyed the customization options in Saints Row 2, you would think he would have given credit for the fully customizable player model that was represented in campaign.

Also, although I think some things could have been fleshed out more, I think it's nice that they didn't overdo any of the "excitement" portions of the game. If there was a whole mission dedicated to space-flight, it likely would have gotten boring and pissed a lot of people off. So it's a fair trade off I think. The campaign wasn't perfect, but it was solid.

I thought the campaign was awesome. I found it more fun than many single-player only games I've played. Game modes like firefight have never been this customizable before, you can spell out exactly what you want to happen enemy spawning wise. I thought this should have been mentioned, but anyways, I don't really use Yahtzee to choose what games I buy. I can tell if a game is terrible by watching gameplay on youtube, or reading some smaller video game review sites. I watch Yahtzee cuz he makes observant jokes about the inherent stupidness present in all games, and I like that!

Reach was marketed towards campaign, and Yahtzee probably would have enjoyed it more if he knew he could have grabbed a jetpack at many different times through the mission. It was about 8 hours for me on heroic, which was shorter than some halo games, but in most halo games with long campaigns like halo 2, It started to get rather tiresome fighting through backtrack levels and waves of flood. It was a more all around fun campaign than any other halo one, I think.

Reach was the least repetitive of all the Halo games in my opinion
but it was also very short...

I'm not particularly excited about any shooters nowadays tho
neither Black Ops or Medal of Honor seem to focus much on the single player campaign (at least not in their ads and stuff), so idk

Mathias Andersen:
blah, shooter1235421

judging by the opinions of player responses/reviews, is there any shooter that isn't blah?

Numachuka:
Cue the Halo fanboys?

Oh well good review and I agree mostly from what ive played of it at a friends.

LOL he said gay-lo though, that might upset the Halo fanboys but pleases the haters (who IMO are the true metacunts)

Racecar1994:
Wow. This is the first halo game he's actually liked...

cool, that was a nice surprise. Noblest death goes to Jorge for me however

: ) Love Jorge!

I thought he would say Jorge had the noblest death cuz Jorge is European xD I think...what I thought when I watched the VGA trailer

Yeah, they really didn't incorporate the Armor Abilities into the campaign in innovative ways. A missed opportunity. It also starts to drag on in the last few missions.

Magnetic boots Yahtzee, magnetic boots. There you go.

Silver Patriot:
I am surprised. I was expecting a much more negative review on the Single Player portion of the game. Though I am disappointed in the fact that that is all the review is based off of. Even if he wanted to discount Multiplayer, the credit system and the intergrated Bungie.net for his reason, and he discounted Forge and saved films for similar reasons. Their is still Firefight. That requires only one person and he never mentioned it.

Though the one thing that bothered thoughout the review was the part where he said that Reach takes place at the beginning of the war. No it doesn't, it takes place 27 years after the start of the war. That's why they knew how to use Covenant equipment.

Humanity encountered the Covenant on Harvest first, right?

OT: Still surprised he only looked at the Campaign only. You can play all aspects of the game except for watching films in splitscreen or online multiplayer, so there wasn't an excuse to look past forge and firefight. A game should have a great Campaign, but that doesn't mean everything else can be disregarded.

duchaked:

Mathias Andersen:
blah, shooter1235421

judging by the opinions of player responses/reviews, is there any shooter that isn't blah?

Well, the premise of every shooter is to shoot something at something, so you can fill in anything to badmouth a game and make it sound boring.

I enjoyed the video. But it seems like Yahtzee has never heard of the term RET-CON.

Anyway, Bungie did the best job on the game story wise. They made the planet itself feel like a character and there's this lingering sense of hopelessness that culminates in the planet making the Covenant glass industry boom. They added some variety to the aging gameplay, but I hated the characters. They tried to get you to get emotionally attached to Noble Team, but they failed so fucking hard on that part. Carter's a stereotypical Marine, Kat's a stereotypical Marine with boobs, Emile's the strong silent type, Jun's a stuck up dickfaggot, and Jorge is the only one with a soul.

Without a doubt, they did an impressive job on the ending. It ends with a loss, but it feels like a victory at the same time.

I disagreed vehemently with the Halo 3 review but I think he's spot on with Reach. However he did say that you might need to go through the books and that to understand the story. Not true. The story is so bad in Halo Reach that it's actually MORE CONFUSING if you have read the books and know what's supposed to be going on.

har har at the Oni pun yahtzee.

It was a good game dammit!

And my day is made. I can't quite believe he didn't blast the Mjolnir-plated testicles off of the game, but hey.

But the true entertainment comes from the highly amusing arguments that lie within the comments section...

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here