Top
170°
8.5

Halo: Reach Review: WorthPlaying

WorthPlaying writes, "Halo: Reach is something of a contradiction. Planned as the pinnacle of Bungie's work on the series, Reach offers up both disappointment and exhilaration. For every moment of innovation, there is also a moment where the game drops the ball. Reach is by no means a bad game, but it fails to impress as much as those that have come before."

Read Full Story >>
worthplaying.com
The story is too old to be commented.
2631d ago Replies(2)
Syriel2631d ago

Multiplayer was great, but SP just didn't hold up. Felt like a rehash.

Halo 3: O.D.S.T. had a better SP campaign.

Motorola2631d ago

I doubt many people will play SP. Just saying.

TheIneffableBob2631d ago

In most games with both SP and MP, the majority of gamers don't even go online. The single-player is all they play.

BISHOP-BRASIL2631d ago

@TheIneffableBob

Although what you said is true to 99% of the games around that fit in this category (have both MP and SP), Halo isn't like that.

If you take the time to ask around it will become clear almost everyone got Halo for MP first and foremost. A lot more than CoD for example. It's on the same category of games like SOCOM, Orange Box, Unreal Tournament, etc... People simply don't care if the SP there is anygood.

That said, I don't like Halo MP, never did, so it's bad news to me if many reviews start to pop around saying the SP isn't that good. It won't stop me from playing it (I don't even have a 360 and it won't stop me too) but I really don't want to get let down by SP again, it's been like this since Halo 2 (although the downfall was Halo 3, were they obviously get it would sold anyway as far as people got entertained by the MP part)...

When I first played Halo 1 it was awesome how it was possible to relate to the universe, the get all those Marathon references, how it teased that you would be about to discover more of it all the time... Halo 2 and after looks like you just keep fighting to end it all, so you can discover a bigger problem/war still need to be fighted. I expect Halo Reach, as the final Bungie Halo (or not) to be even more revealing of the old Bungie's Marathon universe, if that is there I don't care what the review scores around are.

CombatEvolving2631d ago

Who cares what they think. As far as the shooter genre goes this game can't be matched in terms of quality and content. One 8.5 with a bunch of 10s and some 9s isn't going to make a difference. This is the best shooter available on consoles and only loses in terms of content to PC shooters. I can't wait until Tuesday.

HyperBear2631d ago

This is what I don't get. Out of the 3 reviews I've read that have given Reach an 8.5, the only reasons I've seen are about the SP Campaign, and only in certain areas. So just cause the SP is not completely 100% awesome, means the score drops 1.5?, yet some games with no story what-so-ever and no "fun" gameplay get higher scores?

But that's alright, everyone is entitled to thier own opinions. I think the lowest scores we will see tonight will be 8.5 anyways, which is still a solid score :D

Motorola2631d ago

Yeah scores wont be under 8s for sure.

Syriel2631d ago

I think it's a matter of what the game offers.

If you're putting forth both a SP and MP component to your game, then both should be of equally high standards.

A game that only offers SP or MP isn't going to be judged on something that was never offered, but a game that offers both and falls short it one area is going to be dinged for it.

HyperBear2631d ago

ok...so by that logic, then reviewers should rate and judge a game based on what they offer, then get dinged for not offering the other one. So if a game only has SP and no MP (depending what genre) or if a game is only MP (Warhawk/MAG) with no SP, then they should be judged as such for leaving out features other games have...dont you think? but I know what your saying...

Show all comments (16)