'Other games tend to funnel you in one direction - be it a ranked multiplayer or a deep single-player campaign. Halo: Reach offers it all, and the experience and emotions differ widely dependent on which social-sapping well you plunge into - intensity and intrigue in single-player, jovial smack-talk in multiplayer, and concentrated teamwork in Firefight. It's also a cracking story you'll remember for years to come.'
The customisation tools on offer are labelled 'unbeatable', adding: 'There is enough in the Reach package for everybody: lone wolves, split-screen mates, Xbox Live addicts.'
The game landed in the hands of consumers three days early this weekend - with more copies expected to arrive on doormats today.
Yes. Well at least IGN and co gave it a 10/10 as well so either they are all being paid money to say good things, or it is actually a good game. Yet somehow they bring up the graphics are better than Halo 3 but not GoW level, yet give a game 10/10 but if another game didn't have GoW level graphics it gets like 8/10. Heavily bias on over-hype I see..
Im no fan of Halo I admit that, its just not my type of shooter. But I am glad Bungie have made what sounds like a great game and that can only be a good thing if they can create other games (new IP's?) that are just as good.
So in short, Halo = meh, Bungie able to make good games consistantly = win.
No game should ever get a 10/10 review score. There are always flaws to the game and if the is 1 flaw or negative remark toward the game how can it get 10/10.
Stop sucking the teet, That goes for any game on any console, pc and handheld device.
As much as I've enjoyed the game so far, there has been a couple of fairly annoying bugs in the game (such as at one point the humans and elites were just standing around each other as if they were best of buds while the elites just continued to shoot me), and some other things in the game that seemed to have got worse (you can only have one person in theater mode while on splitscreen instead of two like on Halo 3). The campaign imo wasn't the best either, with it not even having the "epic" ending that Halo/Halo 3 did (at least it's better than Halo 2).
So personally I can see why it's gotten good reviews and why CVG gave it a lower one in comparison which I think it deserved instead of near perfect scores.
No game should ever get a 10/10 review score. There are always flaws to the game and if the is 1 flaw or negative remark toward the game how can it get 10/10.
This has been explained so many times to people... 10/10 does NOT necessarily equal 100% (and usually never does). Usually if converted (based on the reviewer) it could mean 95%+ - just like NOM (not ONM) used to have out of 10 but then switched over to out of a 100 and a lot of the 10/10 games ended up with less than a 100.
That and even if a game has flaws it can still be considered "perfect" in a players eyes; take tLoZ: OoT for example or Portal for example. Neither of them are perfect technically speaking, but are still considered though by hundred of thousands of gamers across the world
Whats the point of review scores if every reviewer is giving it a 10/10s ? I want to know the flaws of a game because no game is ever gonna be perfect no matter how good it is.
Its just a waste of time reading reviews of big budget games because sites like IGN are like children that are easily exciteable ( I'm sure that was a typo but whatever ).
Well, it's the official mag- so it was obviously going to get a 10/10. Much like Gran Turismo will most likely get a 10/10 from PSM3. It depends on whether you're a fan of the series- the Halo games are some of the few games that remember having fun takes priority. I can't sit through shooters like COD as they're far too poe-faced and lack any imagination or creativity.
Whats the point of review scores if every reviewer is giving it a 10/10s ? I want to know the flaws of a game because no game is ever gonna be perfect no matter how good it is.
Its just a waste of time reading reviews of big budget games because sites like IGN are like children that are easily exciteable ( I'm sure that was a typo but whatever ).
Did you not read what me and ted1138 said? (He was more accurate on the conversion, I wasn't 100% sure).
And if you want to know the flaws of the game then read the f**king review then! That's what they're there for, and hell they're more important than the scores; unless you're an accountant.
What do you mean "there isn't"? For what reason do you think a game can't ever be awarded a 0.0 or 0/10 score just in the same way that games may be awarded a 10.0 or 10/10? Your explanation is just another codswallop idea for you to try and make sense out of some numbers and there's no truth or fact behind it.
Did you not read what me and ted1138 said? (He was more accurate on the conversion, I wasn't 100% sure).
Accurate on the conversion? So some XBots on this site make up some number ranges for ratings and everyone else is supposed to adhere to it as though there's now some sort of officially accepted conversion scheme for converting ratings? Please...
It sounds like just another stupid XBot excuse for Halo not having a run button. Ohhh Master Chief can't run, he's got all that armour on! Master Chief can't run, he's carrying heavy weapons! Yeah, tell me another one... Master Chief is a fat f***er wearing a girdle!
What do you mean "there isn't"? For what reason do you think a game can't ever be awarded a 0.0 or 0/10 score just in the same way that games may be awarded a 10.0 or 10/10? Your explanation is just another codswallop idea for you to try and make sense out of some numbers and there's no truth or fact behind it.
Did you not read what me and ted1138 said? (He was more accurate on the conversion, I wasn't 100% sure).
Accurate on the conversion? So some XBots on this site make up some number ranges for ratings and everyone else is supposed to adhere to it as though there's now some sort of officially accepted conversion scheme for converting ratings? Please...
It sounds like just another stupid XBot excuse for Halo not having a run button. Ohhh Master Chief can't run, he's got all that armour on! Master Chief can't run, he's carrying heavy weapons! Yeah, tell me another one... Master Chief is a fat f***er wearing a girdle!
Accurate on the conversion? So some XBots on this site make up some number ranges for ratings and everyone else is supposed to adhere to it as though there's now some sort of officially accepted conversion scheme for converting ratings? Please...
It sounds like just another stupid XBot excuse for Halo not having a run button. Ohhh Master Chief can't run, he's got all that armour on! Master Chief can't run, he's carrying heavy weapons! Yeah, tell me another one... Master Chief is a fat f***er wearing a girdle!
Take a breather, re-read what you said and think about it for a moment. There, realise what an idiot you've just been? Yeah, I thought so too. Because honestly I can't even be bothered to waste my time to try and explain it to someone who's brain is filled with four letters of the alphabet.
Just cause your too stupid to learn how to count doesn't make numbers dumb. Now go away and let the grown ups talk...
There, realise what an idiot you've just been?
You're the ones insisting that scores need to be converted (to percentiles) & compared across web sites. I'd say that makes you both very stupid and idiotic.
Many sites use a 5 star rating which isn't intended to be converted & doesn't convert well to a percentage. Such sites are also willing to award a title no stars at all if a game is absolutely crap. Other sites - like 1Up award letters which also don't convert well nor are they supposed to... These sites deliberately use alternate means of rating games to get away from using a percentile but it wouldn't surprise me if you want to waste your own time coming up with a silly little numbers table to convert these too.
Just cause your too stupid to learn how to count doesn't make numbers dumb. Now go away and let the grown ups talk...
There, realise what an idiot you've just been?
You're the ones insisting that scores need to be converted (to percentiles) & compared across web sites. I'd say that makes you both very stupid and idiotic.
Many sites use a 5 star rating which isn't intended to be converted & doesn't convert well to a percentage. Such sites are also willing to award a title no stars at all if a game is absolutely crap. Other sites - like 1Up award letters which also don't convert well nor are they supposed to... These sites deliberately use alternate means of rating games to get away from using a percentile but it wouldn't surprise me if you want to waste your own time coming up with a silly little numbers table to convert these too.
I give up, you really are too stupid to know when your being stupid. Anybody else out there think they can get through to this retard?
Just cause your too stupid to learn how to count doesn't make numbers dumb. Now go away and let the grown ups talk...
There, realise what an idiot you've just been?
You're the ones insisting that scores need to be converted (to percentiles) & compared across web sites. I'd say that makes you both very stupid and idiotic.
Many sites use a 5 star rating which isn't intended to be converted & doesn't convert well to a percentage. Such sites are also willing to award a title no stars at all if a game is absolutely crap. Other sites - like 1Up award letters which also don't convert well nor are they supposed to... These sites deliberately use alternate means of rating games to get away from using a percentile but it wouldn't surprise me if you want to waste your own time coming up with a silly little numbers table to convert these too.
I give up, you really are too stupid to know when your being stupid. Anybody else out there think they can get through to this retard?
You're wasting your time trying to get through to him.
If you want to see him making an even bigger tit of himself go back and look at the GT5 damage modelling article from early last week.
Copyright 2006 - 2009 Future Publishing Limited, Beauford Court, 30 Monmouth Street, Bath, UK BA1 2BW England and Wales company registration number 2008885
So some XBots on this site make up some number ranges for ratings and everyone else is supposed to adhere to it as though there's now some sort of officially accepted conversion scheme for converting ratings? Please...
Now go away and let the grown ups talk...
