More on Halo: Reach

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Oliver Pink:

Cowabungaa:

But as for competitive multiplayer, I'm sorry, I just don't see the appeal of playing the same maps over and over again to find out which one out of you is the best at whatever it is you're doing. That's not why I'm into gaming. Call me antisocial.

Sure, but you can't blame the game for that. Different games cater to different tastes.

The fact that one is not into competitive multiplayer gaming doesn't make games that focus on it bad, it just makes them games that don't belong in ones tastes. The game can still function properly, have solid and well-balanced gameplay, that sort of thing. I hate FIFA games, just go outside and play football yourself you lazy bum, but I can't call them bad games just for that.

I wouldn't use MMO's as examples either, I'd pick games like Unreal Tournament, Quake, Team Fortress 2 and most fighting games.

You raise a valid argument - but remember that EVERYONE can play Single Player because everyone is always themselves all the time. Not everyone has an internet connection, or money for a subscription, or friends or a decent phone line. Thus it is crucial for a game to be able to stand up on Single Player only, simply because there are plenty of people who will never see a multiplayer game segment, let alone play it regularly.

Everyone except those who don't have gaming consoles. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who own a console and play games regularly can afford those other things. If you look at my post above, you'll see that I only rent games for their story, but I buy titles like halo because they are a lasting investment. Games have been moving away from being story based because it's economics. Just look at the numbers, all the best selling games are the games people play for the multiplayer. The numbers suggest the actual facts, developers have relegated single player to secondary importance. You suggest this large market of people who will pay 60 bucks for ten hours of story. I don't know anyone like that, story games are 'renters'. Your economic presuppositions are all wrong. WoW, Starcraft, Halo, Call of Duty. All multiplayer centered games, all dominate the market.

Sennz0r:

ZahrDalsk:
[quote="Sennz0r" post="6.238206.8540055"]
I noticed that too, but what was Jorge's comment on "been hers half my life" about then? That would certainly imply she was his mother, or at least the person who looked after him half his life.

Interesting though, you think the pronunciation was off, while I think the subtitles are wrong :p

As a Spartan-II, Jorge was kidnapped at a young age and replaced with a flash-grown clone. He would not know his mother and it definitely wouldn't be Dr. Halsey. Of course, this is backstory, so for people who're just into run'n'gun and don't enjoy reading (like you, or Yahtzee) it's certainly wasted.

And yes, their training regimens are remarkably like suicide bombers. Both Spartan-IIs and Spartan-IIIs are fully prepared to die for their cause.

Actually seeing as Jorge was a spartan II he would remember his mother. He was kidnapped at six, most people remember their mother at six years old. Chief and all of the spartan IIs were all very smart and very strong so I don't think they would forget, unless I missed reading something saying that they did in fact forget about their previous lives.

I liked Reach. lets just get that out of the way

anywho

I agree the worst point of the game for me at least plot wise was when you go deep underground and theres this big thing and then you pick up what i am assuming is cortana, my biggest hate on the game is that i wanted to see that plot element devlopted more. Maybe its to much for a video game but it still would be cool. Maybe i need to succumb to reading the books.(god save me)

MystryMeet:

Sennz0r:

ZahrDalsk:
[quote="Sennz0r" post="6.238206.8540055"]
I noticed that too, but what was Jorge's comment on "been hers half my life" about then? That would certainly imply she was his mother, or at least the person who looked after him half his life.

Interesting though, you think the pronunciation was off, while I think the subtitles are wrong :p

As a Spartan-II, Jorge was kidnapped at a young age and replaced with a flash-grown clone. He would not know his mother and it definitely wouldn't be Dr. Halsey. Of course, this is backstory, so for people who're just into run'n'gun and don't enjoy reading (like you, or Yahtzee) it's certainly wasted.

And yes, their training regimens are remarkably like suicide bombers. Both Spartan-IIs and Spartan-IIIs are fully prepared to die for their cause.

Actually seeing as Jorge was a spartan II he would remember his mother. He was kidnapped at six, most people remember their mother at six years old. Chief and all of the spartan IIs were all very smart and very strong so I don't think they would forget, unless I missed reading something saying that they did in fact forget about their previous lives.

Yes, they were kidnapped at six, but they were immediately drilled to forget their previous lives and they never saw their parents again, so they only remember it like a dream.

MrDeckard:

MystryMeet:

Actually seeing as Jorge was a spartan II he would remember his mother. He was kidnapped at six, most people remember their mother at six years old. Chief and all of the spartan IIs were all very smart and very strong so I don't think they would forget, unless I missed reading something saying that they did in fact forget about their previous lives.

Yes, they were kidnapped at six, but they were immediately drilled to forget their previous lives and they never saw their parents again, so they only remember it like a dream.

Really? I missed something, which book was this? Or did I miss it in the Dr's notes?

"I liked it, but I can't like things. Much less Halo things. So in order to maintain the loyalty of my fans I must now back peddle like an otter prostitute."

MystryMeet:

MrDeckard:

MystryMeet:

Actually seeing as Jorge was a spartan II he would remember his mother. He was kidnapped at six, most people remember their mother at six years old. Chief and all of the spartan IIs were all very smart and very strong so I don't think they would forget, unless I missed reading something saying that they did in fact forget about their previous lives.

Yes, they were kidnapped at six, but they were immediately drilled to forget their previous lives and they never saw their parents again, so they only remember it like a dream.

Really? I missed something, which book was this? Or did I miss it in the Dr's notes?

It was in the book Fall of Reach. They weren't specifically told to forget, but nothing of their previous lives is ever mentioned to them, so they forget. Also, the Chief mentions on one of the books that all he remembers of his previous life is like a dream

Thank you Yahtzee for writing an entire article just to clarify that you don't like a game, because, you know, you always like games.

OhJohnNo:
So, wait, what? Does this mean Yahztee actually reads comments on his videos? Huh, you learn something new every day I guess.

And when it's Yahtzee, I'm happy to settle for him finding it "inoffensive", even if I disagree and think it's awesome. Yes, even the singleplayer - indeed, I thought that was the best part and can't get enough of the campaign.

(still no reply? M be disappoint)

You are right in every way my friend.

MrDeckard:

MystryMeet:

MrDeckard:

MystryMeet:

Actually seeing as Jorge was a spartan II he would remember his mother. He was kidnapped at six, most people remember their mother at six years old. Chief and all of the spartan IIs were all very smart and very strong so I don't think they would forget, unless I missed reading something saying that they did in fact forget about their previous lives.

Yes, they were kidnapped at six, but they were immediately drilled to forget their previous lives and they never saw their parents again, so they only remember it like a dream.

Really? I missed something, which book was this? Or did I miss it in the Dr's notes?

It was in the book Fall of Reach. They weren't specifically told to forget, but nothing of their previous lives is ever mentioned to them, so they forget. Also, the Chief mentions on one of the books that all he remembers of his previous life is like a dream

So that's why I don't remember, I thought it was like stated. Thanks maybe I'll re-read everything.

ReiverCorrupter:

Everyone except those who don't have gaming consoles. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who own a console and play games regularly can afford those other things. If you look at my post above, you'll see that I only rent games for their story, but I buy titles like halo because they are a lasting investment. Games have been moving away from being story based because it's economics. Just look at the numbers, all the best selling games are the games people play for the multiplayer. The numbers suggest the actual facts, developers have relegated single player to secondary importance. You suggest this large market of people who will pay 60 bucks for ten hours of story. I don't know anyone like that, story games are 'renters'. Your economic presuppositions are all wrong. WoW, Starcraft, Halo, Call of Duty. All multiplayer centered games, all dominate the market.

So, everyone who owns a games console is also able to afford a phone line, high speed internet connection and subcription to the gaming service of the console they own? that really is quite the presumptious statement. I find it strange that you say that story games are "renters". It somewhat saddens me to know that somebody would merely rent a game, play through its story then return it to the place they rented it from. Your statement that you don't know anyone who buys story-based games can hardly be taken as conclusive proof that these games are only worth renting. All that means is that you don't know anybody that (shock!) would take singleplayer over multiplayer. Would it surprise you that for some people I know the main draw of Halo : Reach for them was actually the events of the singleplayer game as opposed to the multiplayer sections? Also, you're statement that games are moving away from being story based couldn't be more wrong. While a lot of games out there do now feature multiplayer components, they will likely also feature singleplayer elements as well. Look at the number of games that are due to be released, or have been released recently. Mentioning the next two games from Bioware, Dragon Age 2 and (when it's announced) Mass Effect 3 - there's two major games there that will be purely singleplayer and story driven. What about Bioshock Infinite? Assassins Creed : Brotherhood (don't try and kid yourself or anyone else by saying that that's a multiplayer game)? Deus Ex : Human Revolution? Fable 3? Fallout: New Vegas? Enslaved, a game that basically shouts the fact that it has harrative qualities form the rooftops, what with having an actual wellknown author involved in its production? So yeh, story or narrative isn't really looking that important to games developers right now. At all.

You mentioned, what four games that are multiplayer focussed, though I don't think WoW warrants inclusion in that list, given that despite it's MMO design, it really can be as single- or multiplayer as one wishes it to be. As well as the fact that there is basically a story underpinning basically everything that happens in World of Warcraft. Halo and CoD may dominate the markets they are in to some extent, but that's really only the market of being games that people play online a lot, not the gaming market in general.

Palademon:
Yes, it is rather boring. There are new weapons and vehicles. (Or should I say old). I much prefered ODST's characterisation. I only starting liking Noble team (a little) after about half of them were dead.

WOW and to think that YOU of all people wouldn't like Halo:Reach

Allow me to Present a short summarization of the Multiplayer

image

It seems like you just trying to get a rise out of people. The game is popular, get over it.
Also you should probably deal with the fact that not all games are designed specifically for you.

But this is my favorite shirt!

Sneaklemming:
I dont care for halo, but I do care about multiplayer. Most fps games released these days use their single player as a kind of tour of the environments, weapons and mechanics. Notable exceptions exist, but for the most part multiplayer games are the core of gaming today.

This, and the problem with Yahtzee's arguments is that he's assuming game designers agree with his philosophy. In a lot of video games, regardless of how well fleshed-out a single-player game is, most people will focus on the multiplayer aspect, because that's what keeps people playing. Would World of Warcraft be so effective if it had an ending? Sure, most MMOs have an 'end game', but most of them don't say 'We're done! Roll credits!' and close it off. Would the cesspool that is Modern Warfare 2 be so successful if it didn't have such well-designed multiplayer? The answer is, quite simply, no. The majority of people enjoy the multiplayer more than the single player. It is not a good business decision, then, to focus so primarily on a good single player.

I hope he figures that out soon, or shuts up about it. I don't care if this is a comedy show. It's fucking annoying.

Sir John the Net Knight:
Yahtzee is just so tired and predictable. I'm sick of hearing him blather on about how multiplayer doesn't matter. It sure as hell seems to matter to a lot of other people.

I've grown so tone deaf to Yahtzee's profanity-laced ramblings that they start to sound something like...

I don't think he means multiplayer doesn't matter, more that not everyone will want to play the multiplayer (himself included) therefore for a game to be good it's story (almost the entire point of a game, next to it being y'know fun) and single player needs to be immersive enough that multiplayer is almost a nice suprise after you finish.

ZahrDalsk:
Yahtzee should have played with subtitles on. I know Jorge pronounces it "mom" but that's just his accent - he's saying "ma'am."

Anyhoo, I guess Reach can join Half-Life 2 at the Mediocrity Table, eh?

I thought he said "mum" as well... pug isn't pip. pip is pip. pug is pug

Cat Cloud:
I'm just glad I'm not the only person who deosn't care about multiplayer. Great article.

There are lots of games that i don't care for, that's why I don't play them. I don't force myself to play them and then go on line bitching about them........that would be retarded.

Oh Yahtzee, your hate of Halo is legendary (as I have said before). So I can simply dismiss your semi-legitimate ravings on the best FPS of the year (so far) as the stinky driblets of a foul-mouthed urchin.

BUT... carry on. Criticism is marvelously refreshing - even when it is a tad strained.

Rooster Cogburn:
Not everybody likes single player games. I don't play single player at all, ever. Therefore, all games must be judged on their multiplayer experience alone.

Excellent point.

Meh i'll just buy the game when its gets a serious price drop. Even though this probably wont happen for quite for time, considering how popular the Halo franchise is. I find that the only games in which i enjoy mulitplayer are games designed specifically for multiplayer: like Unreal Tournament.

I love Halo, but I agree with Yatzeee that the game isn't anything special without the multiplayer. It'ok without multiplayer, but barely worth 60 bucks.

Artemus_Cain:
Yeah, I'm not going to buy it either. I also don't like Bungie's "No idiots allowed" policy which bans achievment points from drooling imbiciles like myself who can only play on easy. Well fuck you to Halo, it's not my fault you give more than half of the bad guys greneade launchers, and I'm handed a crappy pistol and an assault rifle with poor aiming.

You obviously suck so badly at the game that you should not be playing it; I breezed through the game in about 10 hours on Heroic and I completed about 1/3 of the missions on Legendary in about 4 hours. It's really not that difficult.

The Assault Rifle is really accurate... if you learn how to fucking use it. Christ, you must be a fucking imbecile (your own words, mate, your own words). Short, controlled bursts -- hell, Bungie even named gave that name to certain daily challenges requiring you get however many kills in campaign with the AR.

Frankly, if you're playing any game on the easiest difficulty setting you don't deserve any achievements or rewards.

Grow some balls and play Heroic.

MarsProbe:

ReiverCorrupter:

Everyone except those who don't have gaming consoles. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who own a console and play games regularly can afford those other things. If you look at my post above, you'll see that I only rent games for their story, but I buy titles like halo because they are a lasting investment. Games have been moving away from being story based because it's economics. Just look at the numbers, all the best selling games are the games people play for the multiplayer. The numbers suggest the actual facts, developers have relegated single player to secondary importance. You suggest this large market of people who will pay 60 bucks for ten hours of story. I don't know anyone like that, story games are 'renters'. Your economic presuppositions are all wrong. WoW, Starcraft, Halo, Call of Duty. All multiplayer centered games, all dominate the market.

So, everyone who owns a games console is also able to afford a phone line, high speed internet connection and subcription to the gaming service of the console they own? that really is quite the presumptious statement. I find it strange that you say that story games are "renters". It somewhat saddens me to know that somebody would merely rent a game, play through its story then return it to the place they rented it from. Your statement that you don't know anyone who buys story-based games can hardly be taken as conclusive proof that these games are only worth renting. All that means is that you don't know anybody that (shock!) would take singleplayer over multiplayer. Would it surprise you that for some people I know the main draw of Halo : Reach for them was actually the events of the singleplayer game as opposed to the multiplayer sections? Also, you're statement that games are moving away from being story based couldn't be more wrong. While a lot of games out there do now feature multiplayer components, they will likely also feature singleplayer elements as well. Look at the number of games that are due to be released, or have been released recently. Mentioning the next two games from Bioware, Dragon Age 2 and (when it's announced) Mass Effect 3 - there's two major games there that will be purely singleplayer and story driven. What about Bioshock Infinite? Assassins Creed : Brotherhood (don't try and kid yourself or anyone else by saying that that's a multiplayer game)? Deus Ex : Human Revolution? Fable 3? Fallout: New Vegas? Enslaved, a game that basically shouts the fact that it has harrative qualities form the rooftops, what with having an actual wellknown author involved in its production? So yeh, story or narrative isn't really looking that important to games developers right now. At all.

You mentioned, what four games that are multiplayer focussed, though I don't think WoW warrants inclusion in that list, given that despite it's MMO design, it really can be as single- or multiplayer as one wishes it to be. As well as the fact that there is basically a story underpinning basically everything that happens in World of Warcraft. Halo and CoD may dominate the markets they are in to some extent, but that's really only the market of being games that people play online a lot, not the gaming market in general.

Oh, no. I wasn't saying that all games are moving away from plot. My response was to your claim that it is crucial for games to have a strong single player component. It clearly isn't. There is a HUGE market of gamers out there who could care less about story. And ultimately the gaming industry is, surprise, about making money. So why would they expend massive amounts of effort on something their target audience isn't looking for. I probably will buy Fable 3 because it's gameplay will probably be fun enough for multiple play-throughs. I hope the story is good too. But I don't come into a Halo game and expect Shakespeare, nor am I disappointed when it isn't Shakespeare.

And why is it sad that I rent a game, play through its story and then return it? That's just called 'not being a sucker'. The damn things are $60!

ianrocks6495:
You shouldn't judge Reach solely on its single player just like you shouldn't judge Bioshock 2 solely on its multiplayer.

That's a good point. You should judge Bioshock 2 on it's samey monotonous singleplayer rather than it's eclectically fun multiplayer that died too quickly =-(.

I like Reach, I'm a Halo fan, this "review" does not bother me because I view Ben as, someone said it before but I'm to lazy to quote it, a show. He is funny and does what he does well, talk shit about games. Maybe everyone would feel better if his title were "Gaming Scrooge" since that is really what he is, he brings up valid points sometimes but it's his job to go on tirades and get pissed about shit that shouldn't really matter. No one should take him seriously.

Jesus Christ Halo fans, your making the rest of us look like damn fools, stop getting mad about this shit. All that should matter to you is if YOU like the game, YOU feel like you got your money's worth, YOU care about multiplayer. He isn't forcing his views on you and trying to change your mind, he is stating his opinion. Calm the fuck down and go pwn some noobs or slay come Covies or something.

Whenever I get a yearning for ridiculous weapons in fast-paced 1st-person action I play 'Aeons of Death' for a while. Keeps me tolerating the modern grit movement.

OhJohnNo:
So, wait, what? Does this mean Yahztee actually reads comments on his videos? Huh, you learn something new every day I guess.

Everyone knew that when he made this video

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/37-Mailbag-Showdown

Welcome to the site, Kyoh.

Kyoh:
If Yahtzee says he doesn't review multi-player aspects of a game

That is not all Yahtzee has said on the subject and this is not what I am commenting on.

why are you continuously complaining?

I never brought it up before.

If you don't like the way he reviews...

Who says I don't? My complaint is more specific.

Reviews are ALL subjective,

Agreed. Which is why I find it so incongruous when Yahtzee turns around and insists games must be judged by their single player experience regardless of multiplayer offerings. Especially when the only justification he offers is he likes one and not the other. It would be just as strange to say games must be judged by their multiplayer experience regardless of singleplayer offerings just because I usually skip the latter.

[EDIT: Just to be clear, I never skip the single player. I'm just making a point.]

This is going much further than merely announcing he doesn't like multiplayer and judging the game on the merits of it's single player portions. He is making a statement about how games ought to be judged, a statement I do not agree with.

The shirt I'm wearing is actually fairly slimming, but I'm not surprised that Yahtzee is just trying to hurt my feelings. Nine months of regular cardio, and apparently nothing to show for it? What a dick.

But yeah, I like Halo. I don't see eye-to-eye with Yahtzee's whole multiplayer opinion, as it's probably the main selling point of the game. It shouldn't be a critical point, but it'd definitely another way to have fun in something that's called a game.

Horror games suck. If you want to be scared in an interactive medium, go to a low income housing project in a major city.

Uber Waddles:
New Rule: Yahtzee isn't allowed to talk unless he knows what he's talking about.

He's judging Halo Reach based on story. Despite openly admitting he has never played Halo or Halo 2. Yeah... Thats like me saying Dragon Age sucked because the story of Mass Effect was bad.

Lets fill Yahtzee in here. Spartans are basically enslaved Super Soldiers. They are captured young, and raised to accept orders and to be as effective as possible. THATS why they are so willing to throw their lives away: their job is to get the MISSION done. Period.

No matter the odds, no matter what needs to happen, YOU have a job to do, and no one else is gonna do it. If anything, the ending of Reach fit extremely well into the overall story; they gave their lives for hope. But I guess thats wrong when Halo does it (nevermind the fact that yahtzee dares not to mention that some games he gave praise to, like Mass Effect, do have those endings where the main character dies for no reason. BUT WHATEVER).

As for "games need to stand up on their singleplayer", no. Your wrong. Period.

While YOU dont see the appeal of Multiplayer, SOME people do. And a LARGE ammount of people bought the game JUST for multiplayer, cause they dont care about story. If you want to call yourself a reviewer, you have to acknowledge all aspects of the game, or atleast enough to get the grasp. The story mode =/= CTF, so get your ass on Multiplayer or stop reviewing games that have Multiplayer.

All Yahtzee is is a troll who rants about games, often without even thoroughly playing them, then makes VERY poor excuses for why he likes trolling the fan boys.

Do I like Halo? Yes. Do I care for Yahtzees opinions? Back when he used to be funny and original. But now-a-days, hes neither. Yahtzees opinions on the game will not change my own, what does piss me off is how Yahtzee tries to make these intellectual arguements and try to sound like a supreme critic when hes not that smart, or that good of a critic.

If your gonna judge a story, ATLEAST Wikipedia it.

Oh, now I know what he means by halo fanboys. Never read enough on here to notice them before.

ReiverCorrupter:

Everyone except those who don't have gaming consoles. I'm willing to bet that the vast majority of people who own a console and play games regularly can afford those other things. If you look at my post above, you'll see that I only rent games for their story, but I buy titles like halo because they are a lasting investment. Games have been moving away from being story based because it's economics. Just look at the numbers, all the best selling games are the games people play for the multiplayer. The numbers suggest the actual facts, developers have relegated single player to secondary importance. You suggest this large market of people who will pay 60 bucks for ten hours of story. I don't know anyone like that, story games are 'renters'. Your economic presuppositions are all wrong. WoW, Starcraft, Halo, Call of Duty. All multiplayer centered games, all dominate the market.

Economy? Sir, Cigarettes make huge bathing swathes of money every year - does that make Cigarettes a good thing? Just because something makes more money than God doesn't mean that it's any better. Pyschonauts has No multiplayer to speak of whatsoever, and I rate it as one of my top 3 games I've ever player.

However, your Console based arguement is somewhat subverted when you use Starcraft and WoW as an example. I don't use Consoles myself, neither do many of my friends - all avid gamers I might add, who enjoy very much playing Single Player games moreso than multiplayer.

I don't disagree that such games make Huge amounts of money - but that's because they charge HUGE chunks of money for the privelage. Starcraft? Around a hundred Australian dollars. Psychonauts? 10-20 off Steam. And I love Both games, but never play Starcraft online multiplayer because I'm in it for the campaign.

Not every gamer is an online adrenaline junkie who wants to verbally tea-bag people of all nations and creeds - there are plenty of gamers who want to have a game that they can enjoy on their own, or possibly with one or two good buddies. The reason Multiplayer games make such a Huge chunk of money is because they generally tend to be hideously expensive by comparison to account for the online support. You pay less for Single-Player games because they're only that: single player. (Console games excluded because they'd be expensive even if you were buying Farmville, god forbid.)

Everyone is different - and I know for a fact that things like this new Knights of the Old Republic game coming out I'm going to sadly miss out on because as far as I can tell, it's an MMO - and no doubt they'll be charging monthly for it. I Loved KOTOR and KOTOR2 because of their story, they were delicious victory wrapped in a lovely buffet of single player character extravagance. And now what - they're bringing out the so called 'third' game, and making it Entirely multiplayer based?

I assume by your comments that you own Halo Reach, (and if you don't something similar). If one day a new Halo sequel was released and they suddenly decided to change the entire format to Single Player ONLY - you'd be a bit miffed... but not as miffed as the gent who finds his beloved sequel focuses on the Multiplayer, something he can't play.

I seem to have gone on a bit of a rant here - but the point is, Multiplayer is not everyone's cup of tea. The only Multiplayer online games I play with regularity are TF2 and L4D (1&2), and of the two of them, only TF2 is exclusively Multiplayer.

Like many others, I purchase games because they have charm, character - or an appealing storyline. TF2 I paid for the art-style and the engrossing characters, and I've never once regretted my decision.

You praise Call of Duty for its multiplayer, but the only reason I bought COD4 was because I'd heard the single-player had an epic story - Single Player.

Don't get me wrong, I understand that Multiplayer is popular - it really is. But by focusing on Multiplayer at the expense of the Single Player, you're cutting out a Huge quantity of potential buyers.

After all, the Half Life series hasn't got a multiplayer (aside from Deathmatch, an entirely different game), and MANY agree that it's one of the best - if not The best - series of FPS games ever released.

Anyway - this block of text has gone on for a bit, I'm going to go for a walk and buy me a sandwich.

Starke:

rollerfox88:
I'm not wearing a shirt...

Me either...

Me too...are we gonna start a 'no shirt' club?

I've wanted to write this on everyone of his comment-boards, so here goes.

All reviews are subjective opinion. Just because you disagree with him does not make him wrong. But unlike you, he is being paid to say the the things he does. He reviewed the game out of professional obligation and not just to annoy you. Whether Halo Reach is good or bad is not the cultural milestone people are treating it as. Conjecture and opinion is not definitive data.

p.s. my shirt is awesome dammit.

I shall now build a robot that shall go around kicking the nads of anyone who claims that multiplayer is the end all of gaming.

Inoffensive is an apposite way to describe Reach from my personal experience. It was an enjoyable yet brief story that was worth the rental, but as someone without an Xbox Live Gold account, most certainly not worth a purchase. Gameplay wise, it has not altered the formula too much, but it is still a polished one at that, exceeding many other shooters.

I believe that is where judging games based on the various portions such as multiplayer and singleplayer is actually somewhat accurate. As a whole I'm sure Reach has the potential to deliver to those who enjoy both its story mode and its multiplayer portion, warranting a buy. But those like me who would simply play a game's single player and can only judge the single player most likely would be more inclined to find another game than Reach for the money. This is not only a matter of access to a broadband connection, but paying an additional fee for the Xbox Live subscription that not all 360 users sign up for. I would personally like to play Reach's multiplayer, but $60 a year for one game is not something I can justify (for other reasons of course). If anything, there is a whole host of reviews that cater to the opposite view of Yahtzee's by focusing on the multiplayer, which neglects those who prioritize the single player.

This is also why I see no call for alarm by those Halo fans who have trouble accepting a non-fan's criticism. The fact is we all have things that we favor and are more knowledgeable about, so it goes without saying that the unitiated will base their own views off of what they prefer. I am not a Halo fan (nor am I a hater, mind you) and have not read the books. So Yahtzee's complaint on the lack of back story is sensible to me as there are plenty of opportunities to expand upon the story, build relationships and care for the characters, and tie together a compelling exposition that all audiences can appreciate, not just Halo fans.

From more of an "outsider's' experience with Reach, the critiques on its story and dearth of explanation do hold weight because one cannot assume that all who play Reach's story will have read into the books or even played the technically later installments. The characters are also subject to such varying considerations, as those who are more aware of the complexities and back stories of Halo and are fans will be more inclined to find the characterization fine. Again, this is not a Halo specific matter, but instead a mechanism geared by ones' preference on any subject. If someone loves the Uncharted games and read all of the hypothetical novels associated with it, they will be more inclined to find satisfaction despite less involved back story explanation or not somewhat lacking characterization.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 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
Register for a free account here