More on Halo: Reach

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

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

...what are you talking about?


Ah-HA! I'm not WEARING a shirt!


woops, your a chick. <.< really, i'm not a pervert.

Of course it does. This is my fat shirt.


(ok thats better)

It sure is!

(jiggles various flabs)



Wait... is that gender inequality...? :P

I shall not be discriminated against! It's my right as a male! (continuous jiggle)

What do you expect to be a multiplayer review to be?

"It's like single player but it has no story, stays in the same map, continuously respawns weapons and vehicles, and has no monsters or computer controlled fighters."

Except for a few things, you'd be rating people who play the multi-player instead of the multiplayer itself.

Sure he could mention the forge, but it'll be the Guitar Hero World Tour thing all over again (hint: he doesn't think he'd ever stoop doing doing something so boring/geeky).

Sure he could talk about the new mega-sizes of maps. If he actually cared about multiplayer, and was a regular player of Halo 3 multiplayer, all he'd probably mention is that the massive size of a map can start to get in the way of actually playing the game.

As for the different play modes of multiplayer... well... are they any different from the play modes for multiplayer in Halo 3? Any new ones at all? Besides, he COULD spend another 3 minutes coming up with various analogies to describe how each multiplayer mode is just a slightly different way to compare sizes in the locker room, but, I wouldn't want to see it...

did he just indicate he likes MGS 3 ?

if so, i just lost a LOT of respect for him ...

Yahtzee makes a new game review every week, which consists of him playing the actual game, writing a script, recording a review, fixing up any mistakes he made, and doing all the pictures. He doesn't have the time to bugger around all week in multi-player, and even if he did rate a game solely on multi-player, there would still be people bitching.

Besides, multi-player is usually just a dumbed down version of the single player games with whiny idiot kids screaming into their mics, and drunk idiots yammering on about how pro they are. The point is; you can play a single-player game any way you want, and you don't have ot worry about being called a camping faggot noob with no friends.

People really thought he liked Halo:Reach? Wow.

As for the Spartans being cold-blooded and distant to their mums: I think 13 year olds dig that. The story might be bland (have yet to play any Halo) but it's pretty perfectly engineered for the likes of young boys from the looks of it.

Co-op is one thing, but that's basically just single player with a ball and chain (and if you've never gotten that impression of co-op, it's because you're the ball and chain).

Can someone explain this to me? I don't get it.

A ball and chain slow people down, and in the context of halo your coop buddies are slowing acting as the ball's and chain's, and if you don't feel that your the one slowing down the other people because your a ball and chain your self.

There has been no interest whatsoever in making realistic physics for the game, so it obviously has to suck major gang of dicks.

To be perfectly honest, I agree with Yahtzee's point on how a game's single player mode has to stand up on it's own before shoving in Multiplayer.

I'm not a multiplayer junkie (you can flame war me later). I beat Halo: Reach and I think the single player was adequate, but that's all. The Multiplayer does nothing for me.

Halo: Reach was fun, but not -great-.

Now, let the flame wars ensue, and do take note that I'll probably not pay any more attention to this thread.


some angry words

The fact is that Yahtzee shouldn't need to know about the established Halo universe, Reach is a PREQUEL. Nothing has happened, its BEFORE the ORIGINAL Halo trilogy. Giving Yahtzee crap for not knowing the subtext for a PREQUEL is pretty bad logic (Story writing tip, a prequel should establish subtext, not rely on subtext otherwise it defeats the point of a prequel). A proper PREQUEL shouldn't ASSUME anything. An 8 year old should be able to pick up Reach without playing any other Halo game and understand the story without any subtext.

Also MassEffect 2 is a SEQUEL, it happens AFTER the events of the first one, so its perfectly good story writing to assume that the reader should already know things. I don't expect a reader of the last LOTR book to understand whats going on if they haven't read the rest of the series.

(Capped words are important, improve your comprehension)

Wow, massive presumption on what a prequel should be. A prequel is a sequel, just set before the events of the original work.

When The Star Wars Prequels (ultimate example of a bad prequel) came out, nobody was confused by the Jedi, or the Force, and when they 'built' on the mythos, it ruined everything.

Granted, the story should stand on its own, but established details (why the Spartans can run and jump so well in heavy armour, what Cortana is and why she is valuable and what happened on Reach) don't need to be re-established, because most fans already know, and people who don't know can easily find out (unless they're a lazy-ass reviewer).

Who should the campaign be aimed towards? Fans, who are numerous and loyal, who will be bored by asides explaining each and every detail that has already been established, or newcomers, who probably haven't invested in a Halo game before because...they don't like Halo?

Isn't it good for Halo to continue to cater towards its loyal fan-base, rather than people who will most likely hate it even if they try to cater to them? (Now that's backwards logic)

I doubt Halo: Reach is all that good, and I don't think Halo's story is particularly good, but I think Yahtzee's review here is worse. If the Halo series was honestly that bad, then investigate it fully, take it apart from the inside out. If he could actually critically assess Halo, rather than take pot-shots and ignore its strengths and aims, then there would be a point in his review. If he really doesn't care for it, then why not ignore it entirely?

This review, and its follow-up statement, is futile.

(Post-script bracketed statements are patronising, which would be fine if you actually had a point.)

It's not my shirt that makes me look fat. It's the fat that makes me look fat.

I'm not going to spend more than 20 bucks on Reach. Hopefully I'm also going to see if I can get a copy of Halo Wars with it. It just seems to be more of the same, with a hint of lime.

Put iron on in co-op, then the other person is LITERALLY a ball and chain, a covenant looks at him funny and bam! back to checkpoint.

Reviewing a game that is reknown for its multiplayer gameplay and refusing to partake in said multiplay is akin to test driving a 4WD but not taking it off road.

Fucking stupid sums it up neatly.

I see all the fanboys getting angry now.

I woulkd agree though - I rented it, had my fun, and handed it back in. It made me smile for the shorit time I had it

Oh Yahztee, it appears you have been driven to the floor by these groundbreaking points that keep coming up.

Clearly everyone knows that if you're going to pick up a game and play it, first you have to read the graphic novel, limited series, background material, cut content, concept, fan fiction...

don't know if anyone has pointed this out to yahtzee yet, dr. halsey is not jorge's "mum" she is miranda keyes'. his accent just sounds like hes saying mom instead of ma'am

Metro 2033 had the same stupid camera trick problem. So you're riding a train down a tunnel and suddenly it switches to a view of the train from about twenty feet away. It was irritating, confusing and it killed the immersion fast.


Yahtzee did you actually READ that "ancillary media", because it also explains away the floaty movement feel and the first half of the book makes the whole "mum" thing completely false. Next time make use of all the facts there, just taking the ones that support your argument shows narrow-mindedness.

No one should have to read a novel to understand the plot of a video game...or a movie or whatever. Singular works of fiction should stand on their own, otherwise it all just becomes a closed, fanboy-centric loop.

If someone says the game has no story then responding that the book does is not an argument. It's pretty much admitting it.

Reading this gave me enough proof that Yahtzee is eventually going to play and love the shit out of Bulletstorm.

Oh, oh well, I loved you Reach.
although I do agree with the camera bit.

They probably just expected everyone to have read The Fall of Reach, or for anyone who hadn't to simply not be playing for the story anyway.

As much as the "Halo" games have entertained me over the last few years, I have to agree with Yahtzee on this one. The multi is fun for a distraction sometimes, but it's been a bit since a truly good single player game has come out for xbox. Dead Rising 2 maybe?

He said ma'am, not mum, though she is kinda like his mother...

Also, I think Spartans do kinda go through that whole "you have no life, you are only to serve, and the Military is your God" kinda training. Thinking about it now, you seem to have got that spot on.

Either way, I enjoyed the game.

Of course he didn't like it in the end it's Yahtzee. Him disliking Halo and spreading that notion around these forums is a trademark of his. I can respect that he bases his reviews around single player but honestly when you talk about Halo that opinion makes it about as useful as my dogs.

You review the campaign. Alright, you have 5 options left in the main menu to talk about. So he reviewed 1/6 of the game.

The points he made about the single player are pretty well justified I will admit. I was hoping for a bit more character than what Bungie gave. Jorge was the only one of the characters that I enjoyed and he was first killed off.

But overall Yahtzee will just be a Valve/Half-life fanboy who hates on Halo. No more, no less. He's just popular so it's ok to do it.

Halo was good, i guess, but as Yahtzee said, not so epic. Halo's become like a religious cult.Just ask yourself - What If Halo : Reach was released as 'Invasion Of The Covenents' and released by Atari ??

Yea...that's nice. I stand by saying ignoring the multiplayer for a primarily multiplayer based game is just stupid, but hey, he makes the internet funny, so who cares (not sarcastic, btw). I shall continue to play the game, enjoy it, and laugh that some people will either buy it without ever touching the main portion of the game, or will just say "lol, Halo same game every time".



Yahtzee did you actually READ that "ancillary media", because it also explains away the floaty movement feel and the first half of the book makes the whole "mum" thing completely false. Next time make use of all the facts there, just taking the ones that support your argument shows narrow-mindedness.

No one should have to read a novel to understand the plot of a video game...or a movie or whatever. Singular works of fiction should stand on their own, otherwise it all just becomes a closed, fanboy-centric loop.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. I was pointing out the idiocy of using one fact from a source to back up your argument, when another fact a couple chapters later blows your argument out of the water.

As for your point, I agree with you. But how do you slip power armor specs into a "save the galaxy' story, especially when the PC starts the game in the power armor? The fact that he's in it already kind of says that he knows how it works.

I'm just going to go ahead and jump on the bandwagon here and suggest that you should go and give MassEffect a try.
It has this little thing called a Codex built right into the Game where it explains all the obscure facts and references which relate to the game's universe, thus foregoing any need for phonebook-sized manuals or explanatory literature, which you actually piece-together as you play the game adding a fun yet optional dynamic to it.

I'm guessing Halo: Reach could have easily ripped-off on that, but then that would have put a serious dent in their Merchandise revenue :P


"why an AI is on a bit of glowy pipe rather than, say, a USB stick..."

...or an e-mail attachment! The AI is basically data, right? Why do they have to transport it instead of just transmit it? This weird notion of having to carry Cortana with you existed since the first Halo, but back in 2000, when all console games were still on disc, no one questioned it. Today, when you think about it, it doesn't make sense...

um...we had storage devices back in 2000 also.
It's not that hard to explain away, it is fiction after all. Maybe it's too complex to be "just data" so it needs to storage container to keep it at a constant temperature and to house the complex parts. It's not a music file, it's AI, something we don't have so it's not quite fair to compare it to a simple data file.
You can just as easily nitpick any fictional story. Why didn't they just ride the dragon all the way to the volcano in LOTR? Why did they wait so long to rescue Han Solo in star wars? Why do all of my plot holes involve something from family guy? Why was arrested development canceled but we still have the Cleveland show?

All good questions... But my complaint was not about storage space, it was about transmitting data! I guess the writers could get away with a "The Covenant scrambled all communications around Reach" explanation.

Full disclosure: I am a BIG fan of the Halo series, and I actually think Reach is Bungie's best!

Ah Yahtzee, some interesting points put across and what most people will take away from this is "Does this shirt make me look fat?"

I reckon you would be right to call me a Halo fanboy. I bought my first xbox because of Halo. But I have to agree that Reach's campaign is crazy ultra super weak sauce. It had none of the tension or excitement that you would expect from the story and situation. It also opens up the "Official" book "The Fall Of Reach" and takes a huge dump on the pages. The events in Reach don't jive with the events in the book at all.

Now, I didn't expect them to just recreate the book in video game form, but I did expect that the timeline of events would at least remain the same. There are plenty of ways that you could have inserted the adventures of Noble Team into the gaps in the book's story. As it is they completely canned it and now the discerning fan has to choose which version of the story they want to consider as the "true" timeline. I don't like it.

I enjoy the gameplay quite a bit. The DMR is great and the new level of difficulty is good fun. They really phoned it in with the story though.

People really thought he liked Halo:Reach? Wow.

Co-op is one thing, but that's basically just single player with a ball and chain (and if you've never gotten that impression of co-op, it's because you're the ball and chain).

Can someone explain this to me? I don't get it.

Really guy?

You've never played a game with someone who was literally never in any fight you were in, rather was kind of lollygagging around the corpses of the fallen, gathering the coolest looking (read most useless)gun ammo. Or worse yet is in the fight with you running out to get blown up/sniped/shotgunned/machine gun walled (using the finite respawns, or waiting until the fight is over), followed by a string of complaints about how unfair the game is? Oh also don't forget that at the same time they are causing more/harder enemies to spawn for the "good" player.

That is in no way fun to play with, I just played rainbow six with a guy who has up until that point played nothing but modern warfare. After explaining to him in great detail how the cover system worked; he still ran out, got two shots off, and died for a good two maps or so. He was my ball and chain.

Conversely, when I play halo with my friends, I haven't memorized every baddie spawn point, map, weapon location and easter egg. I am in a constant state of being auto warped to them in a room full of dead guys, I rarely ever contribute to fights, and basically die right off the bat in boss fights, I am their ball and chain.

That's what he meant

The reason the Spartans can jump like that despite weighing a ton is due to their strengh.

About the Suicide Bomber training thing, um, well, since everyone besides for Jorge is a S-III, you hit the nail right on the head. The SPARTAN-IIIs are normally sent in en mass (Noble Team is different from the rest) on a single mission where they're all likely to (and normally do) die.

Abiding Dude:

Really guy?

Ya really.

I just didn't know what the expression "ball and chain" meant, but now I know, and no I do not agree. That's an awesfully pessimistic view, how unusual of Yatzhee...

Ofcourse I've had shitty, unbalanced co-op experiences, but I've also had my share of awesome, 2 guys going berserk ones. Even with a wimp at your side co-op is still more fun than gunning alone. At least more often than not.

Desert Tiger:
Oh Yahztee, it appears you have been driven to the floor by these groundbreaking points that keep coming up.

Clearly everyone knows that if you're going to pick up a game and play it, first you have to read the graphic novel, limited series, background material, cut content, concept, fan fiction...

Of course, how could we all have been so stupid as to not spend more than $60 on a fairly mediocre story and a decent multiplayer game?

Well I'm glad you get the expression now. I'm just saying I don't particularly like dragging a friend through a game; but way more importantly, I don't like like being dragged through a game. And for all the good co-op games, halo is really really good at having one person drag the other. That's partially why I used it as an example. Nothing feels more like a failure than being so lost that the game just yanks you from where you are and drops you next to the good player, normally after whatever fight just happened, and normally just before you can get lost trying to regain your bearings and be auto warped to ten seconds after all the fun ended again.

I like playing games with my friends, And I love it when we are on par with each other. I'm just saying that inevitably one of us will play ahead of the rest of us (it's human nature), and suddenly that player has to stop having fun waiting for everyone else to catch up, and no one else has fun because someone has a super leveled character, or knows the boss strategy already or whatever and is basically playing the game for us, dragging us to their point.

I'd go so far as saying the only games I've enjoyed co-op in the recent past were castle crashers and scott pilgrim. And that's mostly because we beat each of those in one sitting so there was no chance to have someone forge ahead.

Rooster Cogburn:
Welcome to the site, 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.

First off, I apologize, I didnt mean for that to seem like a personal attack. I was directing the comment at the complainers and moaners in general, you know the ones.

True, Yahtzee has a bit of an extreme view when it comes to how games should be reviewed, not gonna argue that. Not that I totally agree with Yahtzee, but I would like to point out one argument of his that does have merit.

He doesn't just skip the multiplayer review because it doesn't interest him. Multiplayer is a variable, it can change in ways the developers can't help. For one, if someone buys a Call of Duty game but doesnt have an internet connection, well that whole aspect of the game is useless to him.

Also, the online population of players decreases substantially after some time or after a sequel has been released, which can create a problem for some players, especially those in small countries, to find a decent game (and with tolerable lag).

So it's not just personal preference, there are some good points why a game should be able to stand up on it's single player alone. Ideally, aspects of a game shouldn't diminish with time just because it's lost popularity. I can always go back and play my favorite single player games from ages ago, but it doesnt work so well when it comes to multiplayer.

It's like that 1970 Ford Mustang your dad always kept in the garage, polishing it to a mirror shine, only taking it out when he wants to reminisce. Except one day he opens the garage to find the back half of the car turned into a flaming pile of crap.

 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
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
Register for a free account here