Kotaku: Halo: Reach Review - A Beautiful Beginning for a Wonderful End

Halo: Reach is unquestionably the best of the Halo games, and that's not a small thing to say. But Bungie doesn't just match the best of every Halo game that came before it, they've improved it, streamlined it, perfected it. Gone are sections of tedium and vacuous game design, gone too is the almost cartoon look of the earlier games and the narrow vision of the places in which they took place. In many ways, Halo: Reach feels like a coming of age title, but not for the characters or the world or the universe Bungie created, but for the studio itself.

The story is too old to be commented.
002840d ago

cheers to Bungie for moving on to better and bigger things, I'll put as much time playing the game as they put making it.

captain-obvious2840d ago

i'll really miss the HALO's that Bungie make after this one

slimy the g8ter2840d ago

its pretty obvious that this game is going to get good scores.its halo ffs,look at odst.that game still got 9's and 9.5's

kaveti66162840d ago (Edited 2840d ago )

Not really. It got lots of 7s and 6s as well. The Metacritic is like 83.

Anon19742840d ago

Critics absolutely love Halo Reach, but Kaveti is absolutely right. ODST received a respectable metacritic score overall, but there were plenty of sites that gave it very middle of the road reviews. Personally, I don't game online with my Xbox so I skipped out on ODST due to it's short campaign. I'm a huge Halo fan - but I had friends that beat ODST in one sitting. That just wasn't worth the money for me, and that was the biggest criticism that ODST seemed to face.

Halo Reach sounds like everything a Halo fan can ask for. Can't wait to take a crack at this. My new semester just started but 2 of my classes don't have an instructor yet for the next week, so I fully intend to get my Halo on!

TROLL EATER2840d ago

more reviews should be like kotakus, remove the scores, just giv an opiion of what they loved and hate. simples

002840d ago

perhaps people enjoying something you can't is the cause hmmmm?

slimy the g8ter2840d ago

ive been playing 360 since 2005. gt XxBaKtothelabxX

002840d ago

If that were true you wouldn't be in every review thread trying to down play it. enjoy sitting in your bitter corner mumbling to yourself.

newhumanbreed2840d ago

Maybe he doesn't have the money or friends to enjoy it.

BannedForNineYears2840d ago (Edited 2840d ago )

No score, lul.

This game is going to sell so many copies.
Doesn't matter what score it gets. ~_~

@Below...That's because they won't want to waste their money on a garbage game.
Can't blame them.

Lovable2840d ago (Edited 2840d ago )

I prefer that way to be honest. At least people will take their time and read the reviews. People depends on the score this gen way too much.

@ How would you know it's a garbage game when your basing your opinion from some others?

dark-hollow2840d ago

Words describe it better than scores

BannedForNineYears2840d ago

Assuming the reviewer is a normal gamer.
Odds are, he'll share approximately the same opinion as any other normal gamer.

That's the point of a review.
If that person liked the game, odds are, you'll like it too.

I'm not saying base whether or not to buy a game purely on reviews, but if you wanna know if a game sucks or not, read a review to find out. It's that simple.
Reviews aren't evil. Neither are review scores.

If you're looking for a good game, and you wanna find out NAOW, you go to a review score.
It's very handy instead of having to read through lines of text.



I think defining the "normal" gamer there is the problem... We all have different tastes, and games don't mess with one taste alone... Maybe they like one portion of the game and not the other, but this don't mean people will follow this pattern.

For sure scores, specially when rightily broken down (think of IGN, with way less lame excuses and a final review that is an average of each score), can point us to general flaws like broken gameplay or annoying voiceovers, but it won't take deeper aspects that made we love or hate games, like broke or not, what the gamplay permits you to do that you don't find elsewhere (that's usually don't count toward score, as each game has one gameplay, what counts is if it works or the learning curve) or are the voiceovers, annoying or not, attachable, there a narrator or only characthers speak (this features won't take point nor grant then, but are usually described in review's text).

Personally I think review scores work a lot more to depreciate the game and leave information out than to inform us of what the package carries. I wouldn't get rid of them, but I always prefer to listen to what I read than to what I count.

RageAgainstTheMShine2839d ago (Edited 2839d ago )

its kotaku if they put in a score. the media buyout will look too obvious
the PS3 stigma will soon be over count, on it

kissmeimgreek2840d ago

Off Topic: Jesus has Bloodmask posted all of the reviews?


ChaosReaperX2840d ago

It is better than Modern Grenadefare 2. That is all that matters to me.

Show all comments (24)