Halo Reach Perfect 10! WTF?

[Eren Murtaugh]

Dude. Completely agreeable statement, and very well thought out. Gotta say, it's crap like this that pushed me away from Halo in the first place. Also, the Godfather IS good, but can we stop using it as the "be all-end all" of movie perfection?

You're saying that other people liking it pushed you away from Halo? THAT is WTF worthy. This is just critics being critics. Don't get so up in arms people. You're making it sound like this is Halo's fault. It is not. It's IGN's stop misplacing the blame on Halo like everybody tries to on this forum.

No, I'm saying people giving it perfect scores when it wasn't a complete game pushed me away. I need some reason to give a damn why the hell I should keep Master Chief alive, and "You gotta save the earth because you;re Mr. Perfect Warrior" doesn't cut it.

 

[ShoopDaToaster]

IGN stopped having a reasonable opinion a LONG time ago.

 

[CJ1145]

What's strange is how they can criticize it, but still give it a perfect score. If it's not a perfect game, it doesn't deserve a perfect score. Even my favorite game of all time, Resident Evil 4, has issues. I could say "well, it wasn't trying to be heavy on the story" but that's still an issue and therefore I cannot give it a perfect score. Even Professor Layton and the Curious Village has some awkward puzzle delivery. That's an issue. It's close to perfect, but it's not perfect. Don't give a 10/10 to a game that doesn't deserve it.

But then again, I'm an extremely harsh critic.

It's remarkable, really. 10/10 does not mean perfect. Nobody seems to recognize this. Even sites where they specifically state "10/10" does not mean perfect, people get all up in arms over 10/10 scores because "OMG they're saying it's perfect RAGE"

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Dude, pay no attention to the score. It's an arbitrary number they threw on at the end. They almost never have a correlation to the actual content of the review.

 

[John Funk]

Actually, a ten shouldn't mean literally perfect - without flaw. It should just mean that it's masterfully done.

That's why we use stars, honestly. People interpret someone giving a game a 10 as saying it is utterly and completely without flaw. Us giving a game five stars, on the other hand? Sure, it's technically the same thing, but if you see a game get 5/5 stars, you don't think "oh, it must be perfect 100%," you just think "damn, that must be a superb game."

Besides, even if the characters ARE fairly stock, they're likable enough, and the story is well told for all its cliches. I'm not going to spoil Tuesday's review, but it was the first time a Halo game felt genuinely emotional

That's something I never understood. Why people take a 5/5 to mean something different than a 10/10. How is a 5/5 "Masterfully well done; A must play" while a 10/10 is "Absolutely perfect in every imaginable way. Nothing wrong can possibly be said about it. Best thing ever. Made by the hands of God himself. Should be worshiped by every man, woman, and child on the planet. Bow down before its glory."? Do you know what drives people to see 5/5 as different than 10/10? I mean, sites even say in their 'review score breakdown' or whatever they call it that 10/10 doesn't actually mean "perfect".

Do I know? No, not at all. Maybe it's because people are silly

 

[Vires Vox]

Why is it that people seem to consistantly make the mistake that 10/10 = perfect

10/10 out of ten represents the best in gaming media that can hoped to be achieved at this present time, at no point in the review did it say "halo: reach is perfect in everyway"

Films consistently recieve 5 stars and no one seems to bat an eyelid at those reviews, and thats because everyone knows 5 stars doesn't mean perfect, it means "this is a great film, go see it", just like 10/10 in gaming means "this is a great game, you should play it"

 

[drisky]

First off all game play is more important to a review than story.
Second its supposedly the best single player campaign of the franchise.
Third stop trying to compare video games to movies
Forth this is why arbitrary numbers are stupid in reviews. Like Yatzee says a review is a complex opinion that can not be summed up by a numerical value. I just ignore the numbers now a days.

 

[Pist0l 07]

I don't think he said there were bad characters, just a bad story. Still, a perfect ten with a mediocre story seems dumb. I enjoy halo and will be getting this but even I don't think it should get a ten. However like Yatzee said, scores don't represent opinions on games well. I guess the line goes if you like Halo you'll like this, but if you've never liked Halo then this game probably isn't for you. However forge world looks like its worth checking out.

 

[sneakypenguin]

I dare say they looked at the whole package to arrive at their conclusion. So what story is a bit samey. There is still forge, multiplayer, 4 player co-op, 4 player splitscreen, horde mode. I look at a game out there and most don't even offer half that stuff much less with the bungie polish and support. All things considered a meh story probably doesn't need to take to much off a ranking.

Then again some people are ones to criticize porches for poor gas mileage lol. Can't please everyone i guess .

 

[ToxinArrow]

ITT: anti-Halo trolls rage, pro-Halo rage rage back, everyone else still has an unaffected personal opinion since no one has played the finished copy, and will decide Tuesday morning.

 

[wrecker77]

Well, the halo games have never had the best stories. But when you tie them with the books. It all kind of makes sense, but its still pretty average.

However, I think the game will be amazing and Tuesday cant come soon enough.

9.5 out of ten are you happy?

And I hate ign, they really are all idiots. Especially their music team.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

It's remarkable, really. 10/10 does not mean perfect. Nobody seems to recognize this. Even sites where they specifically state "10/10" does not mean perfect, people get all up in arms over 10/10 scores because "OMG they're saying it's perfect RAGE"

But it should be. Why wouldn't it be otherwise? 100% means that it cannot get any better. And that's why I don't really like numerical scores like this. Take Indigo Prophecy, which was excellent for the first half and terrible for the second. Or Dark Void which was awful at first but got better later. How am I supposed to rate those games out of 5, 10, or 100? And what if a game comes out that is perfect (my money's on Portal 2)? When it gets a 10/10 and is claimed to be perfect, it will immediately be on the same level as Metal Gear Solid 4 or something that got perfect scores despite being extremely flawed.

 

[Evil_Weevil]

Having just beat the campaign, it's easily the best campaign (and the best-told story) of the Halo franchise. Make of that what you will.

Wait, you guys get early copies? I didn't know that The Escapist was that well known in the industry. O_O

OP: Dude, who cares? It's Halo, just because the writing sucks doesn't mean it's not good. This isn't BioShock for f*cks' sake.

...Uh, yeah. Multiple millions of unique monthly visitors.

Having just beat the campaign, it's easily the best campaign (and the best-told story) of the Halo franchise. Make of that what you will.

I say it's a 9 or 8. After all a perfect ten means it's pefect and if the story is complete stock then that's a big enough hole to prevent perfection.

Actually, a ten shouldn't mean literally perfect - without flaw. It should just mean that it's masterfully done.

That's why we use stars, honestly. People interpret someone giving a game a 10 as saying it is utterly and completely without flaw. Us giving a game five stars, on the other hand? Sure, it's technically the same thing, but if you see a game get 5/5 stars, you don't think "oh, it must be perfect 100%," you just think "damn, that must be a superb game."

Besides, even if the characters ARE fairly stock, they're likable enough, and the story is well told for all its cliches. I'm not going to spoil Tuesday's review, but it was the first time a Halo game felt genuinely emotional

As the thread starter I feel it my duty to try and justify my position. This being the internet that's somewhat more difficult to do in a reasonable way, so here goes...

As I said before I do not recognise the validity of a 10/10 score and nor do I believe that this represents an opinion that the game is "Godlike" to borrow a term. Instead I'm in agreement with you and Eren Murtagh that 10/10 is not necessarily perfect. What I would say though is that even with the advances in game design, the craft and detail present in graphical and audio work has been largely lacking from the story telling aspect of games.

I'm not saying either that every game should be Great Expectations or War and Peace (although I would like a game to attempt Kafkaesque, would be, interesting... ) but for a well read and widely circulated review site like IGN to explicitly belittle this part of games production is deeply disappointing to me as I believe games have the capability to be much more than the Summer Cinema Bonanza that I see currently.

 

[DustyDrB]

I hate to break it to you, but some of the most highly acclaimed games (by both reviewers and users) are games that are lacking in the story department: Halo, Modern Warfare, Zelda, Mario, Oblivion, the list goes on.

It's not such a hard thing to believe. A deep story is optional. It can be a blessing, sure. But in gaming, stories aren't always needed. My two favorite game series: Zelda and Mass Effect. One has a thin story template that's repeated over and over, the other is basically centered around the story. They both work.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Games are meant to be enjoyed and if so a game got a 10/10 it just means its a pretty damn fucking enjoyable game. All of you people who say 10/10 means everything has to be perfect are wrong. Games are created to be enjoyed and the people who played these games just really enjoyed them. Who the fuck said you had to agree with them?

I used enjoy way too many times in that.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

Do I know? No, not at all. Maybe it's because people are silly

There has to be another reason that that. I don't want to do some in-depth study of the human psyche, though. Finding out exactly where this whole thing started and why would be a lot of work for little to no reward. Maybe there's an existing study someone can point me to. Anyone?

 

[Uber Waddles]

Not everyone buys a game for story, just like not everyone goes to a movie for a story.

The fact that they can forgive the story is because the vst majority of people who buy this game ARENT expect a 40 hour campaign with a complex story. They're buying it because they like the gameplay.

I played the Beta, I liked the gameplay. Ive loved the gameplay from Halo, and the stories uptill ODST, which this seems to be this games inspiration.

Ive liked the Multiplayer, Single Player, etc. I like how Halo works in comparison to other popular FPS's.

For a game to get a perfect score, it doesn't have to do everything perfect. We'd have nothing. If some aspects are there to cover others, then thats just fine for me.

And I have a strange feeling if they reviewed it at a 5/10, we'd all be bitching to have that guy fired for under-rating it.

 

[GuerrillaClock]

I dare say they looked at the whole package to arrive at their conclusion. So what story is a bit samey. There is still forge, multiplayer, 4 player co-op, 4 player splitscreen, horde mode. I look at a game out there and most don't even offer half that stuff much less with the bungie polish and support. All things considered a meh story probably doesn't need to take to much off a ranking.

This deserves to be quoted because people need to read it more than once. With all the content in Reach, clearly that reviewer felt that having a lackluster story (not even a bad one, might I add, just not that great) was noteworthy but ultimately inconsequential when weighed up against the enormous suite of features on the disc. Clearly the experience as a whole was still enough to be deemed 'masterful' (NOT fucking perfect!) by the IGN reviewer. It's curious how IGN is getting ripped into when countless other reviewers have been saying exactly the same thing, but it's more fun to be cynical and edgy than accept that a popular franchise might actually be good, I suppose. I'll find out for myself in a day, as will everyone else.

 

[Doc Funky]

I really only scanned the posts here, because the whole "score argument discussion" thing really irritates me...but I was surprised at how many people are with the original poster on this one.

So a 10/10 is completely out of the question if there are any problems with the game at all...but a score of, say, 9.8 or 9.9 would be more palatable? Have you all really become that kind of video game fan? Ones that will throw a fit over one tenth of one point on an online review? I'm honestly surprised to find so many of you on a site that offers video game commentaries that are actually, y'know, deep and insightful.

I always love to see people bring out the "nothing should ever receive a perfect 10" argument, though, since it defeats the entire purpose of grading on any type of scale at all. I mean, if a perfect 10 is always out of the question, you could never grade on a scale of 1-9, either...because if 9 is the highest number, that must mean perfection as well.

I honestly think games should only be rated with WORDS, not with numbers..."Awful", "Bad", "Okay", "Good", and "Great" always work when I discuss games with my friends, and we never have these kinds of problems.

 

[icame]

I really don't care because i gave up on the franchise years ago. The single player campaigns are always short, had okay game play, that by the way, didn't revolutionize shit, and had filler plots. The multilayer isn't even good when you look at a game like counter strike which almost any computer can run now.