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.
