More on Halo: Reach
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Economy? Sir, Cigarettes make huge bathing swathes of money every year - does that make Cigarettes a good thing? Just because something makes more money than God doesn't mean that it's any better. Pyschonauts has No multiplayer to speak of whatsoever, and I rate it as one of my top 3 games I've ever player.ReiverCorrupter said:
However, your Console based arguement is somewhat subverted when you use Starcraft and WoW as an example. I don't use Consoles myself, neither do many of my friends - all avid gamers I might add, who enjoy very much playing Single Player games moreso than multiplayer.
I don't disagree that such games make Huge amounts of money - but that's because they charge HUGE chunks of money for the privelage. Starcraft? Around a hundred Australian dollars. Psychonauts? 10-20 off Steam. And I love Both games, but never play Starcraft online multiplayer because I'm in it for the campaign.
Not every gamer is an online adrenaline junkie who wants to verbally tea-bag people of all nations and creeds - there are plenty of gamers who want to have a game that they can enjoy on their own, or possibly with one or two good buddies. The reason Multiplayer games make such a Huge chunk of money is because they generally tend to be hideously expensive by comparison to account for the online support. You pay less for Single-Player games because they're only that: single player. (Console games excluded because they'd be expensive even if you were buying Farmville, god forbid.)
Everyone is different - and I know for a fact that things like this new Knights of the Old Republic game coming out I'm going to sadly miss out on because as far as I can tell, it's an MMO - and no doubt they'll be charging monthly for it. I Loved KOTOR and KOTOR2 because of their story, they were delicious victory wrapped in a lovely buffet of single player character extravagance. And now what - they're bringing out the so called 'third' game, and making it Entirely multiplayer based?
I assume by your comments that you own Halo Reach, (and if you don't something similar). If one day a new Halo sequel was released and they suddenly decided to change the entire format to Single Player ONLY - you'd be a bit miffed... but not as miffed as the gent who finds his beloved sequel focuses on the Multiplayer, something he can't play.
I seem to have gone on a bit of a rant here - but the point is, Multiplayer is not everyone's cup of tea. The only Multiplayer online games I play with regularity are TF2 and L4D (1&2), and of the two of them, only TF2 is exclusively Multiplayer.
Like many others, I purchase games because they have charm, character - or an appealing storyline. TF2 I paid for the art-style and the engrossing characters, and I've never once regretted my decision.
You praise Call of Duty for its multiplayer, but the only reason I bought COD4 was because I'd heard the single-player had an epic story - Single Player.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that Multiplayer is popular - it really is. But by focusing on Multiplayer at the expense of the Single Player, you're cutting out a Huge quantity of potential buyers.
After all, the Half Life series hasn't got a multiplayer (aside from Deathmatch, an entirely different game), and MANY agree that it's one of the best - if not The best - series of FPS games ever released.
Anyway - this block of text has gone on for a bit, I'm going to go for a walk and buy me a sandwich.
I've wanted to write this on everyone of his comment-boards, so here goes.
All reviews are subjective opinion. Just because you disagree with him does not make him wrong. But unlike you, he is being paid to say the the things he does. He reviewed the game out of professional obligation and not just to annoy you. Whether Halo Reach is good or bad is not the cultural milestone people are treating it as. Conjecture and opinion is not definitive data.
p.s. my shirt is awesome dammit.
All reviews are subjective opinion. Just because you disagree with him does not make him wrong. But unlike you, he is being paid to say the the things he does. He reviewed the game out of professional obligation and not just to annoy you. Whether Halo Reach is good or bad is not the cultural milestone people are treating it as. Conjecture and opinion is not definitive data.
p.s. my shirt is awesome dammit.
Inoffensive is an apposite way to describe Reach from my personal experience. It was an enjoyable yet brief story that was worth the rental, but as someone without an Xbox Live Gold account, most certainly not worth a purchase. Gameplay wise, it has not altered the formula too much, but it is still a polished one at that, exceeding many other shooters.
I believe that is where judging games based on the various portions such as multiplayer and singleplayer is actually somewhat accurate. As a whole I'm sure Reach has the potential to deliver to those who enjoy both its story mode and its multiplayer portion, warranting a buy. But those like me who would simply play a game's single player and can only judge the single player most likely would be more inclined to find another game than Reach for the money. This is not only a matter of access to a broadband connection, but paying an additional fee for the Xbox Live subscription that not all 360 users sign up for. I would personally like to play Reach's multiplayer, but $60 a year for one game is not something I can justify (for other reasons of course). If anything, there is a whole host of reviews that cater to the opposite view of Yahtzee's by focusing on the multiplayer, which neglects those who prioritize the single player.
This is also why I see no call for alarm by those Halo fans who have trouble accepting a non-fan's criticism. The fact is we all have things that we favor and are more knowledgeable about, so it goes without saying that the unitiated will base their own views off of what they prefer. I am not a Halo fan (nor am I a hater, mind you) and have not read the books. So Yahtzee's complaint on the lack of back story is sensible to me as there are plenty of opportunities to expand upon the story, build relationships and care for the characters, and tie together a compelling exposition that all audiences can appreciate, not just Halo fans.
From more of an "outsider's' experience with Reach, the critiques on its story and dearth of explanation do hold weight because one cannot assume that all who play Reach's story will have read into the books or even played the technically later installments. The characters are also subject to such varying considerations, as those who are more aware of the complexities and back stories of Halo and are fans will be more inclined to find the characterization fine. Again, this is not a Halo specific matter, but instead a mechanism geared by ones' preference on any subject. If someone loves the Uncharted games and read all of the hypothetical novels associated with it, they will be more inclined to find satisfaction despite less involved back story explanation or not somewhat lacking characterization.
I believe that is where judging games based on the various portions such as multiplayer and singleplayer is actually somewhat accurate. As a whole I'm sure Reach has the potential to deliver to those who enjoy both its story mode and its multiplayer portion, warranting a buy. But those like me who would simply play a game's single player and can only judge the single player most likely would be more inclined to find another game than Reach for the money. This is not only a matter of access to a broadband connection, but paying an additional fee for the Xbox Live subscription that not all 360 users sign up for. I would personally like to play Reach's multiplayer, but $60 a year for one game is not something I can justify (for other reasons of course). If anything, there is a whole host of reviews that cater to the opposite view of Yahtzee's by focusing on the multiplayer, which neglects those who prioritize the single player.
This is also why I see no call for alarm by those Halo fans who have trouble accepting a non-fan's criticism. The fact is we all have things that we favor and are more knowledgeable about, so it goes without saying that the unitiated will base their own views off of what they prefer. I am not a Halo fan (nor am I a hater, mind you) and have not read the books. So Yahtzee's complaint on the lack of back story is sensible to me as there are plenty of opportunities to expand upon the story, build relationships and care for the characters, and tie together a compelling exposition that all audiences can appreciate, not just Halo fans.
From more of an "outsider's' experience with Reach, the critiques on its story and dearth of explanation do hold weight because one cannot assume that all who play Reach's story will have read into the books or even played the technically later installments. The characters are also subject to such varying considerations, as those who are more aware of the complexities and back stories of Halo and are fans will be more inclined to find the characterization fine. Again, this is not a Halo specific matter, but instead a mechanism geared by ones' preference on any subject. If someone loves the Uncharted games and read all of the hypothetical novels associated with it, they will be more inclined to find satisfaction despite less involved back story explanation or not somewhat lacking characterization.
I never thought he liked it. It's just that if Yahtzee says "this game wasn't terrible and was passible blah blah blah" I usually like it. I enjoy hearing your opinion and the funny ways you bash the flaws of games, but I make my own decisions on what games to buy and have different opinions than you, most of the time. No arguing taste.
" I guess its timing was good. It caught me during a time when I'm having a big negative phase for "realistic" games with all that tiresome cover-based shooting, and anything with the slightest retro lilt is refreshing. "
" ....someone to ask the important questions like what we're doing, and why everyone's wetting their knickers about a bit of glowy pipe, and why an AI is on a bit of glowy pipe rather than, say, a USB stick. "
Inconsistent arguments. Other than that, good read.
" ....someone to ask the important questions like what we're doing, and why everyone's wetting their knickers about a bit of glowy pipe, and why an AI is on a bit of glowy pipe rather than, say, a USB stick. "
Inconsistent arguments. Other than that, good read.
Then you the ball and chain.Brotherofwill said:
Seriously though, have you ever played co-op with a friend, and they suck at the game, and you constantly have to backtrack to guide them through a map and save them from enemies and wait for them to not die long enough to progress through the level? thats your ball and chain
That actually seems like a reasonable theory. Also, your friends are douchebags (unless you play random co-op online which is a horrid idea). Just because I waste more of my time playing video games than my friend doesn't mean I get to boss him around.derelix said:
I was less "Holy crap, Yahtzee likes the game?" and more "Holy crap, Yahtzee doesn't hate the game?"
As a fan, I was actually kind of hoping that he'd tear the game a new asshole (except for the story/gameplay melded ending for obvious reasons). Mainly because despite the game being quite good in my opinion, the level of gushing the "legitimate" reviewers gave was rivaling or surpassing that of Modern Warfare 2. Besides, differing opinions are appreciated. The seatbelt complaint was still awesome, though.
"Every single one of the buggers were highly-skilled self-assured professionals who followed orders impeccably and nobly self-sacrifice at the drop of a hat. This might sound a bit culturally insensitive, but Spartans must go through a similar training regimen to suicide bombers."
The interesting thing about this assumption is that I'm pretty sure it's not very far from the truth. Spartans, if I remember correctly, go through such heavy training that they're supposed to be mentally conditioned into weapons instead of people. Spartan-IIIs (the ones in the Reach that aren't Jorge) go through lighter training, but unlike Spartan-IIs (Chief and Jorge), they are treated as expendable. Send them in if there's a problem, and if they die during the mission, whatever.
"Right, that should give you a few more points to argue over in the comments. If not, here're a few more: Master Chief shows most of the classic signs of a closeted homosexual..."
I never thought about it that way. Interesting thing to think about. "I need a weapon" sounds so gay right now...
"Cortana is actually the ghost of his dead aunt..."
Considering that Cortana's personality is almost literally just Dr. Halsey's personality superimposed into an AI, and Dr. Halsey raised the Chief, that statement is rather surprisingly accurate. Except for, if I recall correctly, the dead part.
"...and that shirt you're wearing makes you look fat."
And why are you paying attention to what shirt I'm wearing, Mr. Croshaw?
As a fan, I was actually kind of hoping that he'd tear the game a new asshole (except for the story/gameplay melded ending for obvious reasons). Mainly because despite the game being quite good in my opinion, the level of gushing the "legitimate" reviewers gave was rivaling or surpassing that of Modern Warfare 2. Besides, differing opinions are appreciated. The seatbelt complaint was still awesome, though.
"Every single one of the buggers were highly-skilled self-assured professionals who followed orders impeccably and nobly self-sacrifice at the drop of a hat. This might sound a bit culturally insensitive, but Spartans must go through a similar training regimen to suicide bombers."
The interesting thing about this assumption is that I'm pretty sure it's not very far from the truth. Spartans, if I remember correctly, go through such heavy training that they're supposed to be mentally conditioned into weapons instead of people. Spartan-IIIs (the ones in the Reach that aren't Jorge) go through lighter training, but unlike Spartan-IIs (Chief and Jorge), they are treated as expendable. Send them in if there's a problem, and if they die during the mission, whatever.
"Right, that should give you a few more points to argue over in the comments. If not, here're a few more: Master Chief shows most of the classic signs of a closeted homosexual..."
I never thought about it that way. Interesting thing to think about. "I need a weapon" sounds so gay right now...
"Cortana is actually the ghost of his dead aunt..."
Considering that Cortana's personality is almost literally just Dr. Halsey's personality superimposed into an AI, and Dr. Halsey raised the Chief, that statement is rather surprisingly accurate. Except for, if I recall correctly, the dead part.
"...and that shirt you're wearing makes you look fat."
And why are you paying attention to what shirt I'm wearing, Mr. Croshaw?
The single player story throughout most of the Halo games (I skipped over ODST to avoid the nerd flu) has been mostly uninteresting. We got the entire story concept in the first game, and it explained the purpose of Halo within 8 hours just fine. Halo 2 went on some really weird story arc with talking trees and shit and only ran 4 hours and felt to me like more like a quick attempt to keep the franchise going. Halo 3 wrapped up the end of the story, and was one of the better incarnations of the franchise.
Reach had one of the least inclusive stories since Halo 2. You didn't get invested in Noble Team because their personalities and motivations in the story basically sucked. You were there, you did a job, and everybody died. And the only time you even saw Halo was during the end credits. I was disappointed they took out dual wielding (wtf Bungie? did they not "discover" you could hold a gun in each hand until Halo 2?) and you had to steal a Banshee if you wanted to fly one (boo!). The gameplay really hasn't fundamentally changed since the series started, which is a good thing. Innovation in story is fine, but attempting to completely overhaul basic game mechanics really chaps my ass, and I'm glad Bungie didn't do that through this series. As for setting this as a prequel, I think it really failed since it didn't explain jack shit, didn't even give an introspective view into the creation of the Spartans. They stuck you in, had you fight the same old enemies, showed Cortana for less than a minute, and then killed everyone. At least there was no Flood!
Reach had one of the least inclusive stories since Halo 2. You didn't get invested in Noble Team because their personalities and motivations in the story basically sucked. You were there, you did a job, and everybody died. And the only time you even saw Halo was during the end credits. I was disappointed they took out dual wielding (wtf Bungie? did they not "discover" you could hold a gun in each hand until Halo 2?) and you had to steal a Banshee if you wanted to fly one (boo!). The gameplay really hasn't fundamentally changed since the series started, which is a good thing. Innovation in story is fine, but attempting to completely overhaul basic game mechanics really chaps my ass, and I'm glad Bungie didn't do that through this series. As for setting this as a prequel, I think it really failed since it didn't explain jack shit, didn't even give an introspective view into the creation of the Spartans. They stuck you in, had you fight the same old enemies, showed Cortana for less than a minute, and then killed everyone. At least there was no Flood!
I fully agree with Ben, a game unless just made to be Multi-player should be able to stand alone on it's own merit in single player.If the goal is just the Multi-player basically then don't have a single player campaign.
That said I still liked the game and I will never ever touch the Multi-player part of the game cause I hate multi-player, mostly a bunch of losers trying to show off their gaming skill when their social skills and life suck outside of the game
That said I still liked the game and I will never ever touch the Multi-player part of the game cause I hate multi-player, mostly a bunch of losers trying to show off their gaming skill when their social skills and life suck outside of the game
Yahtzee, I just think I need to mention this to you:
The reason most developers go to the Mutltiplayer side of the games, is because it's much easier to create, as opposed to a single player game, that's why games like Halo, have no indulgence to create a solid varied SP game, since MP is much more standardized and easier to manage in a small team (ironic choice of words, since the Bungie is pretty big as far as teams go).
The reason most developers go to the Mutltiplayer side of the games, is because it's much easier to create, as opposed to a single player game, that's why games like Halo, have no indulgence to create a solid varied SP game, since MP is much more standardized and easier to manage in a small team (ironic choice of words, since the Bungie is pretty big as far as teams go).
I actually enjoy HALO, and almost never play Multiplayer, so I found this review particularly pleasing.
Yes, I know, multiplayer is what makes HALO HALO blah blah blah. But really, the older HALO gets the more I appreciate it and it's brightly coloured Neon fighting style.
Why? Because the HALO series is the closest any modern game comes to recreating the DOOM experience for me. Yes, and this includes Doom 3.
I approve of this review.
Plus, my shirt makes me look svelte and lean and not at all like I enjoy Pizza.
Yes, I know, multiplayer is what makes HALO HALO blah blah blah. But really, the older HALO gets the more I appreciate it and it's brightly coloured Neon fighting style.
Why? Because the HALO series is the closest any modern game comes to recreating the DOOM experience for me. Yes, and this includes Doom 3.
I approve of this review.
Plus, my shirt makes me look svelte and lean and not at all like I enjoy Pizza.
by the way halo matchmaking is retarded, forge innovated enough to keep me playing multiplayer with my freinds and at least this games story made sence
i totally agree you can make an intelligent game like fallout 3 that will take one of the most dedicated game studios years to make or you can make a 30 minute long *cough*modern warfare 2*cough* campaign and then spend your time on 10 multiplayer maps and then you can go to outsell every form of entertainment of all time. which sounds more appealing?AceAngel said: