"I guess the only reason Master Chief was the last Spartan was because he was out sick while everyone else was at Kamikaze school." classic Yahtzee. That sentence made the whole article for me. (and I'm a die-hard Halo fan)
hmm i don't know about that! XD bad frosting can certainly ruin the cakeMoriarty70 said:A cake needs to be a good cake without the frosting.
I have to agree with you here. I'm a pretty big Halo fan and I thought the video was great. I believe back in Yatzee's Mailbag showdown video he pointed out that it doesn't really matter what he thinks of the game, if you enjoy it then you'll enjoy it, unless something really is bothering you. I like the video and I liked Reach, besides, Gay-lo Reach-around, instant classic.MasterSteef said:"I guess the only reason Master Chief was the last Spartan was because he was out sick while everyone else was at Kamikaze school." classic Yahtzee. That sentence made the whole article for me. (and I'm a die-hard Halo fan)
No, it's nothing like that. The point is, a story set before any other Halo game shouldn't require knowledge of "future events" to make sense. In a game set during WWI, a passing reffernce to missing the shot at that messenger during a trench raid is a cute reference. Having someone say that he's going to kill millions because you didn't kill him is violating logic.Uber Waddles said:He's judging Halo Reach based on story. Despite openly admitting he has never played Halo or Halo 2. Yeah... Thats like me saying Dragon Age sucked because the story of Mass Effect was bad.
But that only increases the agrument that multiplayer is only a perk and not a standard for games to be judged by. To quote the great Colbert "I accept your surrender."DTWolfwood said:hmm i don't know about that! XD bad frosting can certainly ruin the cakeMoriarty70 said:A cake needs to be a good cake without the frosting.
a bad multiplayer does not a bad game make on the other hand
I concur with this.Sir John the Net Knight said:Yahtzee is just so tired and predictable. I'm sick of hearing him blather on about how multiplayer doesn't matter. It sure as hell seems to matter to a lot of other people.
I've grown so tone deaf to Yahtzee's profanity-laced ramblings that they start to sound something like...
You haven't noticed how many times he's been quoting comments from one of his videos in extra punctuation before?OhJohnNo said:So, wait, what? Does this mean Yahztee actually reads comments on his videos? Huh, you learn something new every day I guess.
Exactly....and then there are tonnes of people that don't care--like me--about the multiplayer. So he should take a poll before doing each game, and then cater that video specifically to the audience that love the game? Isn't that what fan-sites are for?Sir John the Net Knight said:Yahtzee is just so tired and predictable. I'm sick of hearing him blather on about how multiplayer doesn't matter. It sure as hell seems to matter to a lot of other people.
I only started reading XP last week, so no. I haven't.WaderiAAA said:I had a feeling extra punctuation would be about this since I read the comments and saw the wrong impression some people got.
You haven't noticed how many times he's been quoting comments from one of his videos in extra punctuation before?OhJohnNo said:So, wait, what? Does this mean Yahztee actually reads comments on his videos? Huh, you learn something new every day I guess.
All completely subjective opinion, and nowhere a reason he shouldn't have paid it some attention and delivered a judgement, regardless of what that would be.Akalabeth said:And rightly so. Firefight is a massive waste of time. I played it single player, all I did was run around and try to stay alive. Got to the 4th wave, killed about 40+ guys and what did I get? 60 credits and nothing else? What's the point??? I'd rather kill 40 guys on the single player campaign where there's actually a reason for fighting.Oh That Dude said:Personally I can't take Yahtzee very seriously as a reviewer if he refuses to review more than half the game.
I mean, disregarding his lack of logic in refusing to accept that multiplayer is worthy of consideration when talking about a game, he also fails to acknowledge two pretty hefty elements of the game: Forge and Firefight. That's not even multiplayer but it's heaved into the "ignore" bin anyway.
ah but in Reach the difficulty is scaled up if there are more players, the AI even acts differentlysunburst313 said:None of the Halo difficulties are challenging enough that you need two people to succeed and the hardest settings tend to send you both back to the last checkpoint whenever either of you dies so it becomes a game of the superior player trying to complete the objectives before their partner wanders his uncoordinated ass right into the path of some sniper fire. The bottom line is that if you've never noticed your friend obliviously driving you both off a cliff then you're the "ball and chain" that's constantly getting in their way.Brotherofwill said:Can someone explain this to me? I don't get it.Co-op is one thing, but that's basically just single player with a ball and chain (and if you've never gotten that impression of co-op, it's because you're the ball and chain).
more so, yesJourneyThroughHell said:So, if he dubs it Halo Reach: Singleplayer Review, will you be happy?Uber Waddles said:While YOU dont see the appeal of Multiplayer, SOME people do. And a LARGE ammount of people bought the game JUST for multiplayer, cause they dont care about story. If you want to call yourself a reviewer, you have to acknowledge all aspects of the game, or atleast enough to get the grasp. The story mode =/= CTF, so get your ass on Multiplayer or stop reviewing games that have Multiplayer.
Slave is the wrong word, the Spartan IIs were kidnapped and convinced they had to do it for the good of humanity and they believed in what they were doing, even when that was killing human insurrectionists, and it's not like they're mindless killing machines, it was noted in stuff put out before the games that Jorge understood the insurrectionists' plight and had sympathy for them but not for their actions of murder, theft, and sedition, and he's shown in the game to have a heart, even if the others aren't so much. The Spartan IIIs were a bit older when they were grabbed and they were (as far as anyone can tell) all orphans from places destroyed by the Covenant, and were given lesser hardware but slightly better training and odds of surviving the process whole because of experience with Spartan IIs, though more of them were, well, produced, and they were sent on more dangerous missions and has less likelihood of coming back than Spartan IIs. I've completely gone into a ramble, sorry.Fronzel said:I find it extremely disturbing that slavery is the hope of mankind. Disturbing the audience can be a great narrative tool, but I get the impression that the whole slavery angle is downplayed in favor of maudlin military sentimentality about sacrifice.Uber Waddles said:Spartans are basically enslaved Super Soldiers. They are captured young, and raised to accept orders and to be as effective as possible. THATS why they are so willing to throw their lives away: their job is to get the MISSION done. Period.
No matter the odds, no matter what needs to happen, YOU have a job to do, and no one else is gonna do it. If anything, the ending of Reach fit extremely well into the overall story; they gave their lives for hope.
If you're playing for rank you're doing it wrong, games are supposed to be for fun, if I had fun looking at numbers and little symbols I'd go do algebra or sudoku or play an RPG.Super Jamz said:I CAN see where he's coming from with the multiplayer. It's pretty decent and keeps things fresh, but i can't see myself playing it permanently (considering the average amount of time it takes to fucking get ONE rank up).