BTW, no ranked multiplayer should be listed as a con for this game... it's really sad that they have done away with the ranked/social distinction rather than continue to fine-tune it.
For all its flaws, It was one of the absolute best things in Halo 2 and Halo 3's matchmaking, and its removal only harmed Reach's multiplayer.
@spongysnake Like I said, the review here to complain about is not this one, but Reach.
Reach was a huge misstep for the series after Halo 3 and some of the claims in reviews of Reach are just total nonsense.
My concern with reviews is that for someone like myself who plays Halo for the competitive element.... well, frankly reviewers just aren't qualified to comment on that. They're not skilled enough players and haven't had enough time with the mp version of the game even if they were.
So while Reach was a big step backwards for competitive play, reviewers simply couldn't comment on it.
They also can't comment on it for Halo 4 either, which worries me. I guess time will tell. The apparent lack of a skill ranking system doesn't bode well.
Both those games sucked on PC. Halo PC had literally the most horrible netcode ever, making the game lag even if your ping was <30. Halo 2 was Vista only for no good reason and was released so late that it didn't really matter.
No way it's as good as they made it sound. "Best Halo ever!" = no way in hell unless you're about 12 years old.
Halo 1 basically defined the console FPS, evolved the genre as a whole, and carried an entire system.
Halo 2 defined the blueprint for online console shooters (e.g. Matchmaking) and is what really launched the now ubiquitous Xbox Live.
Halo 3 polished what 1 and 2 started. Reach and ODST were sub-par compared to those 3.
At the very best, I'd believe it's possible that Halo 4 is better than Reach, but with no real competitive multiplayer and beginning to borrow from other shooters rather than innovate on its own, I doubt its better than the original trilogy.
@boxcuttrr IGN's reviews are always over the top. Their site is a joke when it comes to AAA games and should be read more for entertainment than anything else. GS is possibly headed that direction but tends to evidence a bit more critical thinking ability.
Not going to complain about the 9.0 for H4 as I haven't played it and it probably deserves that score (which is excellent).
What I'm going to complain about instead is Reach getting a 9.5 because that was a freaking joke... Reach offered lame storytelling, no memorable characters, and made some steps backwards in multiplayer (e.g. the maps were bad compared to previous games).
Reach should have been an 8.5 or so. Looking forward to playing this next week and I'm hoping it rights the ship that Bungie began to steer off course with Reach.
"If creators are willing to change the fundamentals of their art just because the audience didn't like it, then clearly those creators didn't care all that much about what they were doing or saying in the first place."
Not everything in gaming is art. Especially not Mass Effect 3's ending. You need to watch this Mr. Sinclair:
The_Beanster's comments