Does Halo: Reach deserve the critical reception it received?

It's dull because it has sandbox combat and dynamic A.I. Which is all crap compared to highly scripted sequences and brainless A.I. like in Half-Life 2 and Call of Duty. Half-Life > Half-Life 2 I've said it Valve fanboys, deal with it.brosyn

While Half Life 2 was heavily scripted and had average AI, it was a tour de force in level design, and still unrivaled in my opinion. No need to hate dude. ;)

i am going to get flak From this but reachs story to me is one of the best Stories i have seen Why? as a big halo fan i have read and seen all the other canon Books, games, ETC, so once knowing the background and what happens to me it made reach so much more emotional, Bungie nailed the personalitys for the spartan 3's and two, and halsey, it was fantastic, and the gameplay never got old id rather it take skill to kill an enemy than 3 shots to the Foot, so i think it deserved more, better than 3 and modern warfare 2, and many more thats for sure

[QUOTE="brosyn"][QUOTE="kozzy1234"]It's dull because it has sandbox combat and dynamic A.I. Which is all crap compared to highly scripted sequences and brainless A.I. like in Half-Life 2 and Call of Duty. Half-Life > Half-Life 2 I've said it Valve fanboys, deal with it.WhenCicadasCry

While Half Life 2 was heavily scripted and had average AI, it was a tour de force in level design, and still unrivaled in my opinion. No need to hate dude. ;)

Great game. Typical Halo though. Average level design, average story, average characters, fun gun battles, awesome campaign in co op on legendary. :) I'd give it an 8 - 8.5 personally. My little brother has already gone back to MW2 though. :lol:

WhenCicadasCry

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

While Half Life 2 was heavily scripted and had average AI, it was a tour de force in level design, and still unrivaled in my opinion. No need to hate dude. ;)

WhenCicadasCry

I enjoyed them. :P They were almost unplayable on the console versions though, so I can see why they get so much hate.

I'm fine with the triple-A praise. Campaign lacks some punch, but it also lacks any of the glaring lows of previous games. So all things considered I'll take it. The feature set is boss, and I love me some of that multiplayer. jg4xchamp

He's not talking about enemy AI in the campaign. He's saying he wished the other Noble Team members could have been more fleshed out. Which I agree with. II'd argue Kat and Jorge were really coming into their own personality, and with a bit more screen time they could really shone.

The rest of Noble Team was hardly worth mentioning. We barely saw any of Jun and Emile's character, and Carter sits somewhere in the middle. It's a shame too - they all had potential but it was ruined by poor pacing.

Kickinurass

Pretty much.

Jorge was like the only other Spartan that actually had something that resembled character other than Noble 6.

Well it's averaging around a low AAA which sounds about right. I found the campaign extremely underwhelming from a story point, and a tad too repetitive, but it's still pretty solid, and of course the multiplayer is great.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]I'm fine with the triple-A praise. Campaign lacks some punch, but it also lacks any of the glaring lows of previous games. So all things considered I'll take it. The feature set is boss, and I love me some of that multiplayer. brosyn

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] Vehicle sections, blargh,. Sandvichman

I enjoyed them. :P They were almost unplayable on the console versions though, so I can see why they get so much hate.

Gave you time to breath. :P Plus it added to the sense that you was traveling across a city, instead of magically appearing in another part of the city, alas Halo. Just my opinion though.

[QUOTE="jg4xchamp"][QUOTE="brosyn"]I agree with almost everything you've said. However, I can't think of a memorable moment from Halo 2. Then again, it's sandbox combat and A.I. is unmatched. The only game I can think about that tops it's sandbox combat is Crysis, and F.E.A.R. is the only game I can think of that rivals it's A.I.Stringerboy

Personally i loved halo 2's campaign, it gave some much needed insight into the covenants motives and culture. Plus playing as someone other than the Master Cheif was a pretty unique twist.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

I enjoyed them. :P They were almost unplayable on the console versions though, so I can see why they get so much hate.

WhenCicadasCry

Gave you time to breath. :P Plus it added to the sense that you was traveling across a city, instead of magically appearing in another part of the city, alas Halo. Just my opinion though.

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"][QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

I enjoyed them. :P They were almost unplayable on the console versions though, so I can see why they get so much hate.

WhenCicadasCry

Gave you time to breath. :P Plus it added to the sense that you was traveling across a city, instead of magically appearing in another part of the city, alas Halo. Just my opinion though.

Campaign exceeded my expectations. I don't understand how anyone can call it a disappointment, it was absolutely incredible. The mutliplayer has years worth of staying power, the customization in the game and map types is incredible. Forge 2.0 is so polished and easy to use the only way someone could be disappointed is if they were expecting a full-fledged map-editor. Firefight is the only disappointment for me, and thats only because of the lack of Classic FF in matchmaking, something many have complained about and Bungie will likely add in. Halo: Reach is the definitive Halo experience, nothign more, nothing less. If you like Halo, you should love this game. I think it is 100% deserving of all its praise. Now if only there were more maps and Custom Games MM.

[QUOTE="Animal-Mother"]

I think thje halo series overall is an average series.

All In all it's an ok series. 8.5 is what I would average it at.

brosyn

Yeah, And also 8.5 out of 10 wouldn't be considered "Okay". 8.5 would be more of a "Very good" rating, 5 or 6 would be considered "Okay".

No, it deserved better critical reception. Objectively, it is the best in the series since Halo: CE, and it's MetaCritic score should reflect that. Gamespot is one of the sites that got it right.

[QUOTE="WhenCicadasCry"]

[QUOTE="Sandvichman"] I can't see how that was enjoyable, TERRIBLE PACING, going around in a boat or a car with nothing happening, no music, no enemies, nothing, just you and your vehicle, then there was the occational house with some headcrabs, and zombies, then came the combine part which were even more uninspiring. just Uck. Sandvichman

Gave you time to breath. :P Plus it added to the sense that you was traveling across a city, instead of magically appearing in another part of the city, alas Halo. Just my opinion though.

Meh, I found it great. Traveling from Dr. Kleiners lab to Black Mesa East was an epic thrill ride for me. If you didn't get the same sense of epicness then that's your loss. :P

[QUOTE="brosyn"][QUOTE="jg4xchamp"]I'm fine with the triple-A praise. Campaign lacks some punch, but it also lacks any of the glaring lows of previous games. So all things considered I'll take it. The feature set is boss, and I love me some of that multiplayer. jg4xchamp

In this case I think it was the fans overhyped it, while the critics gave it a reasonable score. 91% sounds about right for Reach.

91 metascore is what the game truly deserves. But Halo 2 and 3 shouldn't be higher than that.

No. That's not to say it's bad, but the campaign was a bit of a let-down and it's short 3-5 quality multiplayer maps.

No. That's not to say it's bad, but the campaign was a bit of a let-down and it's short 3-5 quality multiplayer maps.

PBSnipes

it should have got a 10 here on gamespot

No it doesn't and after playing reach so much I have come to the conclusion that halo as a series just really ain't that good as I thought..

WilliamRLBaker

No, campaign was dull as hell. AAllxxjjnn

mp and all those amazing features make up for it

Too many of you(just reading through this thread) assume it should be higher because Halo 2/3 scored higher. See this is why the industries critics can't ever be more critical. You all get so focused in on a score. Part of the other 2 getting higher scores could be any range of things from hype to just standards of that time. Even if Reach is the best Halo has to offer. This is the 5th Bungie made Halo in 10 years, and the 3rd in the past 4 years. At this point the formula is showing some fatigue and it should be expected that it won't be met with the same level of praise. It shouldn't automatically score better than Halo 3 because it is better. Things have changed since Halo 3, and it should be expected as a game to be comparable to that standard just as much to the Halo standard of reviewing. Personally the score drop sounds reasonable, and if anything the critics almost showed no backbone in reviewing it. They seemed to be a tad too generous. jg4xchamp

I think Halo and Halo 2 took the world by storm, and Halo 3, and Halo ODST were decent titles, but maybewere anticipatedtoo heavily, mainly due to the success of the franchise. Once the next gen was up and running, and we started seeing what both the 360 and PS3were capable of, with games like COD4,Assassins Creed,Uncharted, etc., it became clear that Halo wasstill a great franchise, but maybe no longer the mighty titan itonce was. Reach, from what I've played so far is a very fun game. I have really enjoyed the campaign, and the multiplayer is also very solid, so I think the reception was justified, and while itmay not havelived up to the hype, it still is a very good game.Not a graphics king,but a really well rounded title from all aspects, from the sound,huge environments,gameplay, andgoodonline setup, it just gives you the most bang for your buck. $60 well spent.

[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]No, campaign was dull as hell. Vader993

mp and all those amazing features make up for it

[QUOTE="FIipMode"]A 91 is great, some people seemed to be tired of the Halo formula so it didn't get those ultra high scores people expected, luckily for me it was my second Halo, so I wasn't tired of the formula at all.brosyn

I don't think so. I enoyed all Halo games immensely at the time they were released up until ODST. I got Reach shortly after launch, and after beating the Campaign, doing some Forge & Firefight and playing a little bit of multiplayer, I put it back in the pile. I played the game for about 2 weeks before I got sick of it. I think this is due to my taste in games changing and that the Halo series haven't really kept up with some of the industry standards for shooters which many other series that I find much more fun have. Basically, my problem with Halo Reach is that it's core gameplay feels really stale to me now. No matter how much other stuff they add, I just can't get over that.

I'd give Halo Reach an 8/10. It's not a bad game by any stretch of the word, but it doesn't do anything amazingly well.

It's an ok game, The SP was dull and the MP got old very quickly, but i managed to have some fun with it in the small time it lasted.

I think some critics are just tired of Halo formula. For me, it´s still as fresh as it was 10 years ago.

it desreves a 95its better than U2, thats for sure

So, Halo: Reach currently holds a rating of 91 on metacritic.com. I would like to ask, do you think it deserved it? I know a lot of people (Primarily haters) are going to call me fanboy on this one, but I think it should score at least 93 or 94. Despite the rather lackluster story and poorly developed characters (Except for Jorge, and maybe Kat), it's easily one of the best first-person shooters of this gen and way better than Halo 3. The fact that this game has garnered lower reception than Modern Brokefare 2: Modern Campfare, has made me lose all faith in most game critics. BTW, I'm not Call of Duty hater. Every pre-MW2 Call of Duty game made by Infinity Ward were brilliant, and World at War was really good too.brosyn

Yea, it should have atleast a 93.

it desreves a 95its better than U2, thats for sure

gamedude234

Yes, I found it to be the most enjoyable since the 1st Halo.

From what I've played of it (the second 2/3rds), the campaign is nothing special at all, but the multiplayer is still fun. Still, it's only a minor improvement over ODST and Halo 3, so...I don't think it deserves more than a 90 - and only a 90 because it perfected the Halo formula.Planeforger

[QUOTE="kozzy1234"]

[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]No, campaign was dull as hell. AAllxxjjnn

Campaign was dull? :?

[QUOTE="AAllxxjjnn"]No, campaign was dull as hell. musicalmac