This is it. Ten years after virtually launching the Xbox brand, Bungie's Halo comes to an end.
But despite the gravitas of the au revoir - and the fact that Bungie's final Halo game is basically a big tale of planet-scale genocide - Reach doesn't feel like a sombre moment in Xbox history.
Reach is a celebration of four fantastic shooters. It pays tribute to entries past (most strongly to the one that started it all, Combat Evolved), whilst delivering the most beautiful and epic campaign yet. In addition, its multiplayer modes brim with depth and customisation never before seen in the series.
But is Bungie's last Halo really its best work? We're not so sure.
Reach for the stars The fifth Halo regales the pathos-filled tale of the human planetary stronghold (that's Reach) - famously wiped out in Halo lore, before the events of the original trilogy of games.
Right from 'press start' you can tell this is going to be the most cinematic, visually spectacular Covenant battle you've seen so far. Bungie's become a master of camera angles, swinging and panning across the landscape like Christopher Nolan snapping his sci-fi holiday video.
Reach itself is glorious; like Rapture and Liberty City before it, the lush, flourishing landscape is like a character unto itself, painting the screen with more atmosphere and drama than even the lead characters themselves (they're Noble team, the band of smaller-than-Master-Chief-but-still-hard Spartans, who you may have seen parading across every television ad break for the last fortnight).
You play as Noble 6, the new anonymous rookie. He hardly ever speaks but still manages to get delegated the toughest and most dangerous jobs on the planet.
As a cheaper, more lightweight Spartan III supersoldier, Noble 6 can't take quite the same beating as the larger Spartan II Master Chief - which you discover the very first time you encounter a group of Elites, who swiftly hand your MJOLNIR-armoured arse to you.
Halo's enemy AI really is genre-beating - and in Reach you'll see it at its best as your alien foes distract, flank and grenade you into oblivion.
The campaign is tight, beautiful and cinematic with an overbearing love for sandbox - perhaps proving that Bungie's learned lessons from the occasionally bloated Halo 3, masterfully scripted ODST and still-loved sprawling worlds of Combat Evolved.
Like any great game, Reach never has you doing the same thing for too long. In one scene you battle Elites across a beautiful, Halo 1-esque vista. In the next, you tear a Warthog across an epic battlefield, stealthily assassinate and snipe Elites at midnight and - yes - fly a jet through space.
The space combat section is fantastically well done. High above the stunning celestial body of Reach, you'll manoeuvre and spin the Sabre (that's your spaceship) through the heavens, shooting down Covenant vessels via clever HUD items - which show the correct spot to target in order to arch your shot straight up their backsides.
But it's not the best airborne section of the campaign. That award goes to the stunningly beautiful mission that sees you piloting a Falcon airship in the rain high above the skyscrapers of a burning Reach city.
Like most missions in the game, it's mind-numbingly gorgeous and a real sandbox heaven. Bungie proves once and for all that when it comes to building a place to have a fight, it's the undisputed champ.
Impressively, repeated playthroughs reveal the studio's gone even further this time; with this mission a prime example of objectives being completely randomised. Players will start and end in completely different locations to another. Awesome.
Deathmatch Evolved Reach succeeds, then, in terms of epic scale, drama and deep sandbox combat. It's more beautiful and better paced than any of its predecessors and, at moments, rekindles the spirit we originally fell in love with in Combat Evolved. It's also the most fun Halo ever in co-op.
But, sadly, it never truly matches those 'OMGWTF' moments Halo 3 delivered in abundance. (Remember that double Scarab fight?).
The campaign - despite its successes in scale, beauty and immense sandbox fun - is structurally the same game the Washington developer's been making for the last ten years.
Usually we wouldn't be up in arms over this - it is after all a pretty fantastic formula to sit on for a decade - if it wasn't for the hugely promising, fresh features introduced in ODST.
ODST's personal, character-driven feel and sandbox overworld came as a breath of fresh air. These ideas weren't fully developed - ODST was built in just a year, remember - but Bungie had a big chance to take them to their full potential in Reach.
Appreciation of that 'feel', of course, is subjective. You might be more of a Halo 3 type than an ODST one - and you can't be begrudged it.
Bu where Bungie should have definitely taken pointers from ODST for Reach is in narrative - an area in which the stop-gap Halo hit an all-time high for the series.
Though many fans dismissed last year's game in anticipation of the 2011 big boy, they would've missed a charming, character-filled plot in which we grew a real affection for the members of the ODST team. They felt like real people, we remembered their names... points we sadly can't say about Reach, which in this area feels like a step back.
Come together There are vital areas, however, that Reach excels - and even takes a few risks. Most notably, this goes for its outstanding multiplayer mode, which half of the CVG community have no doubt already sampled via this summer's beta.
After four games of genre-topping deathmatch, Bungie's wisely decided to shake things up, with character classes, special abilities, experience points (or 'Credits) and character customisation. There's plenty to surprise and excite Halo super fans.
At the end of a Halo Reach session you're now rewarded with a fanfare of numbers and medals - as the game tops up your Credit count for acquiring the series' traditional array of awards.
These Credits can be spent on customising your metal-suited warrior in a system that's far more in-depth than anything we've seen before in a Halo game. Your Spartan can be tailored right down to individual sections of his helmet, and Reach's emblem editor is both more aseptically pleasing and easy to use.
It's a nice touch and another layer of depth on a well established and proven online hit - but it's not the most exciting facet of Reach's Live offering at all.
Armour abilities - treated like glamorised Equipment in the solo campaign - add new strategies and brilliant moments to online matches. The first time you ignite your jetpack to avoid an enemy rocket, or assassinate an opponent in midair, you'll know - like we did - that Bungie made the right decision to shake things up.
And the sheer amount of depth present in both Reach's playlists (which Bungie will be updating constantly post-release) and the labyrinth of options in Firefight 2.0 is astounding. The latter now features our favourite game mode of the series; Versus Firefight, an absolute blast of a game that has two Spartans facing two Elites... and the entire Covenant army.
It's fantastic fun and bound to be fan favourite. Purists will be glad to hear that traditional game modes such as Slayer, Capture the Flag and King of the Hill still feature - but we reckon you'll be far more interested in the new stuff Reach brings to the plasma rifle-filled table.
Evolution, not Revolution Forge, Firefight, 4-player Campaign co-op and a more ambitious multiplayer suite make for one hell of a Halo package. But this isn't a normal Halo - it's a developers' last hurrah to a platform it helped build as a success. And it's for this reason we're left a little bit disappointed Bungie didn't play things slightly less conservatively.
But we digress. Don't read into that comment as a serious attack on Bungie's last Halo - because like all fantastic media, critics and fans (of which this writer is certainly one) will critique the smallest of foibles.
Whilst not the ambitious Magnum Opus we hoped for, Reach is still very much a classic, refined Halo.
So, this is goodbye from Bungie's Xbox reign. It's been a hell of a ride.
The studio's opted out of pumping Reach full of the sort of brash, risky ideas that started it all, for a more stable, predictable affair.
But that doesn't mean it hasn't put a fitting, beautiful and hugely enjoyable full stop on a series that - in terms of what videos games were capable of - truly changed everything.
I liked halo 1 and 2 played them on my pc and got halo 3 and ostd for my 360, only if MS would do a pc version of reach, 1 and 2 played sweet with mouse and keyboard!
A good score, but I feel marking it down because its narrative is not like ODST is petty and rather unprofessional. You are supposed to review the game not score it in a comparrison with other titles, did MW2 get marked down because its story wasn't as good as MW? No, grow up. Just read IGN UKs Reach review and they gave it 10/10, quite a difference, but then they reviewed it on its quality level design, awesome new weapons, the quaulity of the sound effects and soundtrack.....which I don't actually recall being mentioned in this review.
Just read IGN UKs Reach review and they gave it 10/10, quite a difference, but then they reviewed it on its quality level design, awesome new weapons, the quaulity of the sound effects and soundtrack...
...and the big wad of cash MS passed them.
Seriously, though, this is a good score, lets not start discussing the merits of an extra few fractions of a point. I have liked the reviews I have read for this, the campaign sounds more like CE and ODST than 2 and 3, which were the inferior games, (campaign-wise), IMO. Limited Edition should be dropping through the letterbox tomorrow.
9.2 is a fantastic score, theres seriously no need for the nerd rage fueled outburst tbh. I have always said the weakest part of Halo has been the narrative, at least since the first game. I thought Halo 3 was very overhyped, but a good game (always been a huge fan of music/sound in Halo games) ODST did have a better narrative, but was IMO still very poor compared to a lot of games, so if Reach isn't even at that level then it's a negative that should be mentioned in the review.
All that being said it does look like a fantastic game and I do plan to pick it up as soon as the price drops a little.
I only got to play for a pretty short burst last night in the end, but it's great. Had to have sound down as gf was ill, but got the house to myself today so think I'll restart and have the volume up proper!
It feels really good, but I get the feeling if you don't like Halo (either because you just don't or because it's an exclusive) or even FPS's, this isn't really going to sway you.
Haven't even tried with the MP yet. My only issue is an issue I have with quite a few FPS games that have you as part of a squad, your CPU squad mates end up doing quite a bit of shooting and it takes some of the ability away to explore/take it all in, as they kill enemies too! Although I guess in war you don't stand around and look at the scenery.
"My, my. No man's land is looking awfully beautiful this morni...."
the review suxs big time. everyone else gives it full marks but these dudes mark it down for something stupid. sshould be ashamed big time cvg. unprofessional as dave said.
I'm sure that most people who played Halo 3's multiplayer to death and understand it's intricacies will agree when I say that Halo Reach's multiplayer was a very different game.
My copy is coming from Game as I got the Legendary Edition and I cannot wait for it to arrive. This game is going to occupy my multiplayer gaming for a long time.
So if anyone here is a Halo gamer and wants to play some online games let me know.
Look at the end of the day a review is just someones opinion every human being will have one and they will all be very different, this is just CVG's Opinion of the game, and like everyone else's opinion or review it is valid. It shouldn't matter what different websites think of it, no review is accurate or should determine what you think of it, because all that matters is your own opinion one person may think it's worth 10/10 but his brother could think it's worth 3/10 does it matter? No because the person who thought it was 10/10 enjoys it and that's what gaming is all about
Great I thought Bungie would for once try and add some interesting characters but instead we get another soldier who is allergic to talking. Sorry but ODST was abysmal and if Reach is lacking in any department to that game then alarm bells are ringing for me.
I never followed this like crazy but I thought there was going to be a story and characters worth smthg this time around which made me interested. It was pretty obvious that the gameplay wasn't going to change at all so if you expected anything more then that's your problem (It would have been nice though!).
I didn't catch this in the review but is it true that in the MP you can't choose your individual weapons? Are you really stuck with predefined classes? If that's true then that really sucks.
If, like me, you have played a lot of games over the years (20+ years now), what makes a game a 10 out of 10 is, amongst other things, the way it makes you feel. MGS1 did it for me, mind-blowing good. Then Deus EX, HL2, Uncharted 2 and the first Mario. Maybe had I been a bit younger and not played quite so many games before playing the Halo games, they may have been 10s for me.
For me, the best one will always be the first one. Not just for solid gameplay, but the sense of exploration and discovery it gave you compared to almost anything else. It made me feel more excited to play Halo, where the others didn't make me feel the same way as the sense of discovery was replaced by familiarity. I can imagine the 30 something year olds at CVG probably feel the same way. If you are, say, 15-20 years old, the games coming out now will forge your opinion of all games in the future, whereas Deus EX, MGS1 and Half-Life were mine. If you were to ask a fifteen year old to play Half-Life, they'd probably say it was crap.
If it doesn't feel like a 10, then it's not a 10, but it will be someone elses 10. At least they gave good reason for it. Fair review, looking forward to playing it on Tuesday.
I'm impressed with the score actually! I was prepared for CVG to go all giddy like everywhere is predicted to, and slap a 9.5 on there without really backing it up. But respect for the 9.2. By the sounds of it, that's fair too.
A good score, but I feel marking it down because its narrative is not like ODST is petty and rather unprofessional. You are supposed to review the game not score it in a comparrison with other titles, did MW2 get marked down because its story wasn't as good as MW? No, grow up. Just read IGN UKs Reach review and they gave it 10/10, quite a difference, but then they reviewed it on its quality level design, awesome new weapons, the quaulity of the sound effects and soundtrack.....which I don't actually recall being mentioned in this review.
Couldnt agree more,story is not the most important thing in a game,modern warfare 2 campaign was made and story was added after,thats why it doesnt make any sense.But most important is how game plays and feels,like what you said couldnt agree more
Nice to see a more realistic score. IGN UK just slapped a perfect score on it and called it a day. Even though they admit the campaign has flaws. As usual Halo is getting a free ride in some places while other games are severly punished for flaws.
ign uk gave reach 9.5/10. the us site however went for a perfect 10.
can't agree or disagree with the reviews so far. i haven't played reach yet.
predicting a 9 in edge,though that mag is hardly the same anymore when it comes to handing out the holy grail: a perfect 10. 10's are handed out like smarties these days by edge.
I've seen a few people say they didn't care much for the campaign, like Eurogamer who said they didn't care about the characters. Others have complained of glitchy graphics in places and low res textures in some buildings. It all sounds like the usual complaints we get when a big game comes along. Others think it's the best Halo game to date.I think once everyone gets over the hype and settles down they will find that Halo Reach is a very good game. Slightly outdated in game mechanics like some have said, but still fun and better than most FPS out there on consoles.
lol 9.2 is an excellent score, and seemed like a professional review to me. Calling the review unprofessional because it didnt get the score you wanted is child like. If the reviewer were to then change the score because of your comments, that would then be unprofessional. Personally I'm looking forward to the multiplayer more than the campaign anyway as I played that for many many hours when I had halo 3.
I'm impressed with the score actually! I was prepared for CVG to go all giddy like everywhere is predicted to, and slap a 9.5 on there without really backing it up. But respect for the 9.2. By the sounds of it, that's fair too.
ign uk gave reach 9.5/10. the us site however went for a perfect 10.
Other way round buddy.
9.2 sounds pretty fair to me, if I was marking it in comparison to the Halo series, i'd probably give it a 9.8 maybe a 10 at a push. However looking at it as an FPS, it's full of content and would be perfect, but it still feels generic in many aspects. The multiplayer maps suck, I don't think I really like any of them, maybe 1 or 2, and they are clearly holding back some maps which they could easily have put on the disc.
altitude it's not as bad here as some sites that are round. did you see the murder that went off on ign when they gave galaxy 2 a 10?
both the ms and sony fanboys went f*cking berserk over that review,i don't think i've seen such a bitter set of fans this side of anfield (jk). it even got to the point were they were filing user reviews of 0/10 to bring the user average down and the game hadn't even been launched yet.
cvg has it's share of em, of course: one born every minute,looks like darwin was wrong,unfortunately. it's much worse elsewhere though.
naththenarc: thanks for the correction fella. i should've checked that one. that's sunday mornings for ya.
Obviously I can't make a decision about Reach until I've played it, but for me the Halo series has always been an 8/10 sort of experience for me. Great multiplayer, but the campaigns have become fairly tired and repetitive, not to mention the utterly generic characters and narrative (redeemed somewhat by the fact the combat still entertains like few other shooters).
Before anyone goes off on one at me, I'm saying this as a fan of the series, hell I've even read some of the tie in books (including the Fall of Reach, naturally)... not something I'm proud to admit.
Can't believe some people are whinging over a 9.2, you should go vent your fanboy fury on Gamesradar, where it got an 8. Maybe it's time to do away with scores on reviews all together.
why is everyone so upset? 92% is a f**king amazing score, by anyone's standards.
Yh I agree, plus I don't think any game is worthy of 100%, basically what you're saying is the game is flawless and can not be improved in anyway!
It's the fanboys. The Halo series always brings out the 360 ones the worst. And even though some people haven't even played it yet, they will say it deserves a 10...
Don't get me wrong, us PS3 fanboys have games like these...Uncharted and GOW spring to mind.
PC gamers it's Half Life, everyone will expect #3 to be a 10/10.
Below is an image of what makes a fanboy (go to reply and scroll down to this message to view)
Yes, some people think it should be more, some people think less. This reviewer thought 9.2, and that is the point... a review is just a persons opinion.
Saying comparisons are unprofessional is just silly. Of course comparisons are going to be made. Narrative inevitably gets compared to Bioshock, cover based shooters Gears of War, spectacle God of War etc. You can't take everything on its own merit when benchmarks exist. Again, the comparisons are as relative as the persons opinion reading them.
It's all relative. For me, it's going to be a 10/10 and maybe the best game I have ever played, because Halo is without doubt my favourite game series (and universes) ever created. I'm so pumped for this game my head may explode. By the same token, a lot of people will be clamouring for Killzone 3 for instance, which I have zero interest in.
It's Halo. You know what you are getting and what Bungie brings to the table (anyone who denies it's quality is clearly a bit lacking though, whether it's 'your bag' or not), and based on that you will already know whether this is for you or not, you don't need a review.
Yh I agree, plus I don't think any game is worthy of 100%, basically what you're saying is the game is flawless and can not be improved in anyway!
Sorry, don't agree with that. 100% in terms of a review score is exceptional in every sense. It doesn't mean it can't be bettered, just that as a product, each element is perfected and sits in harmonious equilibrium with every other element. It is the pinnacle at that particular moment, but time and advancement in technology etc means everything is eventually surpassable.
Yh I agree, plus I don't think any game is worthy of 100%, basically what you're saying is the game is flawless and can not be improved in anyway!
Sorry, don't agree with that. 100% in terms of a review score is exceptional in every sense. It doesn't mean it can't be bettered, just that as a product, each element is perfected and sits in harmonious equilibrium with every other element. It is the pinnacle at that particular moment, but time and advancement in technology etc means everything is eventually surpassable.
Looks like we will have to agree to disagree, I believe in 10/10's but not 100%, 10.00, 100/100. For a score like that, everything would have to be perfect, for example for Halo: Reach to get 100% it would have to...
have the best graphics you have EVER seen have the best gameplay you have EVER experienced have the best narrative you have EVER experienced have the best sound you have EVER heard from a game
and so on and so on, 100% to me means it can NOT be improved on this gen. I would give a couple games 10/10 but there is no game I would give 100%, because no game is perfect.
LMFAO, you guys are crying about a 9.2. Its hilarious the difference in fanboyism between this and the God of War 3 review which, would you imagine that, got a 9.2 as well...
Ive read a few reviews today from sites I generally respect and all I have to say is roll on Tuesday!
Ill be on the solo Campaign for about 10 days till my broadband gets sorted and im sure ill just have to soldier on with that and that alone (oh the pain the pain ).
So enjoy the MP, Firefight, Co Op Campaign and Forgeworld people, ill be honing my skills as best as I can to not embarass myself to much when im up and running .
Sweet - good review score - didn't read the text to avoid any potential spoilers.
I love the fact people are complaining about a 9.2, either because it's far too high and clearly bought by MS or because it's far too low and deserves an 11.
I didn't realise 9.2 was a low score - I'd quite happily take 92% on my uni exams .
LMFAO, you guys are crying about a 9.2. Its hilarious the difference in fanboyism between this and the God of War 3 review which, would you imagine that, got a 9.2 as well...
If you want to see tears then go in dive into the Ocean that was the KZ2 review Focker then you'll be LOL, LMAO, ROFL and whatever other crazy acronyms you Americans can come up with .
LMFAO, you guys are crying about a 9.2. Its hilarious the difference in fanboyism between this and the God of War 3 review which, would you imagine that, got a 9.2 as well...
If you want to see tears then go in dive into the Ocean that was the KZ2 review Focker then you'll be LOL, LMAO, ROFL and whatever other crazy acronyms you Americans can come up with .
Just went through about a hundred comments. Indeed that was pretty entertaining. ROFLMAO
I believe in 10/10's but not 100%, 10.00, 100/100.
Erm... Simple mathematics dictate they are all the same? Sorry man, really not trying to be argumentative but... well, that's a really confusing statement!
I believe in 10/10's but not 100%, 10.00, 100/100.
Erm... Simple mathematics dictate they are all the same? Sorry man, really not trying to be argumentative but... well, that's a really confusing statement!
I mean when a game deserves more than a 9, so like if I gave a game a 10/10, in percentages I would probs give it a 97% or 98%...but never 100%...but it's closer to 10 then 9 so I round it off to 10.
I think it's a pretty good score. Its a solid game with a multiplayer component that is basically unmatched. I've read a few reviews here and there, and almost all reviews do have a few minor complaints, and all about the single player campaign. So i'm sorry for all the fanboys crying for a perfect 10. I have read enough reviews to see the same issue's getting mentioned again and again. Which means its an awesome game, but not a perfect one.
Yup- 9.2 is an awesome score. I'll probably mark it higher once I get to sit down and play it due to te fact I've loved all the Halo games so far and will more than likely love this too. Whether you agree or not is up to you- as I've mentioned in previous topics, I don't believe Uncharted 2 was a 10/10 game- but many others disagree.
Roll on Tuesday- with the new Forge stuff, I'm not going to be needing another game for a looooong time.
What a farse! UK mags/websites giving a game 9's 10's and they only played the game for barely a day (from 1pm until the early hours of the following morning) at a MS event in a London hotel.
I believe in 10/10's but not 100%, 10.00, 100/100.
Erm... Simple mathematics dictate they are all the same? Sorry man, really not trying to be argumentative but... well, that's a really confusing statement!
Nah I completely agree with him. 10/10 and 100% is not the same. My opinion has been, give 10/10s sure, but really has to be 95%+. So if I were reviewing a game and would give a score like 96%, it's only fair to give it the 10/10. 100% is different. I'm of the group who thinks no game should really get 100%. I've already ranted about how I think some reviewers get too excited by the hype and catch wait to slap on a 100% or 10.0 at the end of a review. Often I think it just shows a complete inability to view the game from different perspectives. Of course, all reviews will be subjective, but IGN have just given me the impression that they go into a game, as a fan of the series, wanting to give it a perfect score. It just seems a bit juvenile. It's also my opinion that most games these days are overrated. But then I guess that's just my opinion again, I've never thought the Halo series or GTA series really worthy of the space between 95% and 100%.
Lastly, I'm sure someone is going to say something along the lines of "it's only a few percentage, it doesn't matter!" but personally I just disagree with that attitude. When you get into the 90s, each percentage becomes a new level unto it's own, at least to my mind. So... the difference because 93% and 96% is worth more to me than the difference between say.. 75% and 78%, purely because so few games are at the higher end of the spectrum of scores.
Anyway bah humbug, I'm tired of scores anyway at this point, they end up being so subjective they're often useless.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
The most beautiful campaign yet
just what it deserves i say 9.5
I thought Bungie would for once try and add some interesting characters but instead we get another soldier who is allergic to talking. Sorry but ODST was abysmal and if Reach is lacking in any department to that game then alarm bells are ringing for me.
.
