Zero Punctuation: Halo: Reach

[Netrigan]

Recall that he has said that he really enjoys Team Fortress 2. I'm starting to think he might enjoy Halo a lot more if there were no single player campaign. Basically, if there's a single player mode, he's going to judge it based on that and the multiplayer is just extra. If a game is meant to be ABSOLUTELY nothing but multiplayer, then that's the only thing he can judge it on.

I know, someone else pointed that out so I clarified it. But you can't judge a game on only one aspect is what I was saying. If there's a multiplayer option, at least try it out. A game that focuses on multiplayer but has a single player like Borderlands isn't being fairly judged when the main selling point isn't even properly tried out.

It wouldn't be the most well-rounded review, but a game that sells itself as a single player game (and almost all of them do), it should stand up as a single player game.

In recent years, with metacritic and Tomato scores becoming all important, I've noticed how fans of a particular property have gotten much more hostile toward reviewers who don't like the stuff they like. But a reviewers job is not to tell you what you already think about something, but to explain what he thinks about something and why. If a movie reviewer goes into a horror movie, has a good time despite him not liking horror movies, then his review needs to say that. Because somewhere there might be a potential movie goer who doesn't usually like horror movies, find said movie intriguing, and decides to check it out because a like-minded reviewer gave it a thumbs up.

My big problem with video game reviews (and I actually did two or three video game reviews for the GameSpy network back in the dark ages of the Wages Of Sin add-on pack) is that far too often the ones doing the reviews are major fans of a given big-name franchise. A really great multi-player experience can cause them to completely gloss over major defects in the single player campaign... the latter being the only thing I care about. I wish more of them would do what one critic of Halo: Reach did, give two different scores: one for single player and one for multi-player. Because the two play modes are very different and need to be treated differently. In such a case, you could hand the single player off to someone who judges it *solely* on its single player merits, then hand the multiplayer off to another experienced on-line warrior and have him judge it *solely* on its multiplayer merits.

 

[GeorgW]

I was very unimpressed with Halo Reach, especially compared to Halo 3. It's basically the same game. But I would have loved to hear Yahtzee's thoughts on the multiplayer. Not only because it's the only good part of the game (I hate the story of halo.), but because I would have loved to see his reactions to the players. A spiritual successor of mailbag showdown, perhaps. Please make a new video like that!

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Well maybe part way, but they sure didnt sit down and say the Acronym had to be ONI first, then think of the words for it. If we were to become a space faring species, it is the Navy who would be the major military presense in space. So from the start it had to be Naval to make any sense at all.

The other two words could be argued from several points so that really takes them out. The only thing left in my mind is why they would include a reference to a game that has no relation (that I know of) to the Halo universe. The Marathon references make sense, as the story and universe similarities are still being argued about amongst community members to this day.

All in all, I beleive that the acronym was created with no intention to be a shout out to a previous game but instead was a coincidence in our english language.

No they definitely made it reference ONI. They probably didn't start out saying 'We're going to reference ONI!' but they definitely eventually chose Office of Naval Intelligence because of ONI.

They didn't go 'Oh would you look at that, the initials are the same as one of our older games! Oh what a complete coincidence we hadn't realised before now'.

 

[Buckett]

There's a reason he probably ignores the multiplayer. Maybe it's the millions of homophobic, racist kids who take the game way to seriously and yell total bullshit whenever they get the chance. It's a good game component but a game needs to be able to have a story otherwise it gets bland.

Besides, some of the best games don't have multiplayer. Take Bioshock: it had an intriguing plot with interesting characters, good combat, and an amazing twist that would make M Knight Shyamalan shit himself. It did this all without multiplayer and when they brought multiplayer to the second one it didnt really add anything, it was just a way for the game to stretch out as long as it could.

 

[Taisen]

Well maybe part way, but they sure didnt sit down and say the Acronym had to be ONI first, then think of the words for it. If we were to become a space faring species, it is the Navy who would be the major military presense in space. So from the start it had to be Naval to make any sense at all.

The other two words could be argued from several points so that really takes them out. The only thing left in my mind is why they would include a reference to a game that has no relation (that I know of) to the Halo universe. The Marathon references make sense, as the story and universe similarities are still being argued about amongst community members to this day.

All in all, I beleive that the acronym was created with no intention to be a shout out to a previous game but instead was a coincidence in our english language.

No they definitely made it reference ONI. They probably didn't start out saying 'We're going to reference ONI!' but they definitely eventually chose Office of Naval Intelligence because of ONI.

They didn't go 'Oh would you look at that, the initials are the same as one of our older games! Oh what a complete coincidence we hadn't realised before now'.

That is probably a more realistic point of view that I would accept. Still, if instead of ONI they had another 3 letter game and they had a list of Titles/acronyms, one being the ONI we know, and the other being the acronym of the new game, I beleive they would take into consideration the legitimacy of the Title.

Obviously Office of Naval Intelligence fits nicely and sounds legit. Something on the other hand that might fit the other acronym but sound ridiculous wouldn't be used just because it ties in with the name of the earlier game. There was just some luck that the title worked well and fit the acronym. Otherwise i'm sure they would have fit it in there somewhere else, the Halo Universe is massive anyway.

 

[Scow2]

I find the fact that a game must be held up by only it's single player is complete bullshit because it removes a HUGE part of the game, multiplayer was made because campaign can only be played so many times before it becomes boring so ignoring the multiplayer completely is kinda bullshit.

Some games were purposely meant to be played multiplayer (Left 4 Dead) but the single player is there if you don't have an internet connection or friends.

Yes, yes it is. Even Yahtzee recognized that he couldn't review the game fairly without taking its multiplayer into account, as demonstrated by his overly-emphatic denial (Has anyone heard of a thing called subtext?) Not judging games by their Multiplayer Component is one of the Rules (Set in Concrete, and defined in Precedent) of his reviews, and he was forcing himself to keep it through that part of the review. Also, playing online (due to GIFT) kills the multiplayer's contribution to the game deader-than-dead.

Remember, he had to SHUT HIMSELF UP before reviewing the Multiplayer feature, which probably means it defied his expectations enough to be worth mentioning.

Ever since his Psychonauts review, he only focuses on the negative aspects of a game, unless it's a Counterpoint review for a week he has nothing to do (Such as his Retrospectiverice of Persia Sands of Time Trilogy). He doesn't mention the good unless it's a counterpoint to the bad.

Aside from his lack of objectivism in his review(He only focuses on the negative) and his use of hyperbole for making a point, he's a pretty unbiased reviewer when it comes to games within the Genres he plays. While he mocked the fandom mercilessly, I think he made it clear that what would annoy the fandom wouldn't be him trashing the game in front of their eyes, but the fact it's the last game from and Endorsed by Bungie. He only reviewed the game on its own gameplay, and in light of the elements the prequels had. He didn't review it based on Hatedom Impression.

I do disagree with his argument on "Same Guns" since I've seen that more as a matter of maintaining continuity than unoriginality (Unreal tried rebooting its Continuity in Unreal 2, but that game's never been acknowledged since) and each game has completely overhauled the weapons themselves.

What I got out of this review was, he liked it a lot more than he's letting on. But, it wasn't so special and/or revolutionary to him as games like Sands of Time, Half-Life 2, Thief 2, Shadow of the Colossus, or Silent Hill 2 for him to consider it a "Classic".

I'm also glad Bungie's done with Halo. 343 Studios can continue to keep the franchise alive while while the games stagnate, but polite folk can feel free to disregard those games and stick with the original Bungie games. Bungie, in the meantime, can go back to creating new, fun, and innovative games, no longer burdened by maintaining the Halo Franchise.

 

[Chrinik]

Very fun video indeed. I was actually amazed he got some form of enjoyment out of it.
Havent played Reach yet, but sure will...sometimes.

But, as far as I knew, wasn´t Reach not the "start" of the covenant war, but rather where things got so fucked for the humans they finally knew they where, indeed, in danger?
Especially the threat of the covenant finding earth, which is tried to great effort to be prevented, which they find anyway<.<

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

*Snip*

I should point out that you forgot one of the biggest changes in the gameplay, dual wielding.

No offense, but he gets paid to review Halo Reach, not to dick around on Humans vs. Aliens Tower Defense (A spinoff of Plants vs. Zombies) or Start in a Set Map and Create Your Own Level sort of (A spinoff of Sim City). Which is probably why he didn't add Forge and Firefight into his list of things to review.

But yeah, the game has some competent things going for it, but they're short lived and then you're back to the boring other stuff again.

What... I... Are you... Are you insane? Because you're either insane, horribly misinformed or trolling. I suspect you're trolling simply because you couldn't possibly be this wrong by accident. Firstly, Firefight is about as far removed as you could possibly get from Plants vs. Zombies. Really. The same goes for Forge; how is a level editor in a first person shooter like Sim City?

Secondly, when you get paid to review a game, reviewing parts of the game is often a fundamental part of that process. Hence why you're supposed to play each of the game modes. And since when has the Escapist been picky about how Yahtzee reviews a game anyway?

 

[Chrinik]

Don't want to discuss multiplayer? Fine. Unprofessional to ignore a key component of the game, but fine...
But why not even mention Forge, Firefight, or Theater? Do those suddenly require backup?

You named it...key component.
Why do games have to be based on Multiplayer nowadays?
I remember when Multiplayer was a GIMMICK! A nifty thing to throw in.
Those games usually had far better and far LONGER campaigns too, because not so much money was invested in the Multiplayer.
Now it´s like "so we have the Multiplayer down...we use what is left over and tack on a campaign mode..."
Besides, we all know the Multiplayer experience can be quite the most annoying part EVER since so many moms buy those games for their kids...
You see, a truely good game doesn´t need Multiplayer, and a mediocre game isn´t gonna be saved by a good Multiplayer.
I would have liked if more money flew into the Singleplayer of Halo and Modern Warfare, making them longer and with better Storys or something, introducing more mechanics and stuff like that.

Because atleast I don´t buy games for the Multiplayer...

 

[Entropyutd]

You had me at meta **** <3
oh and you listed every single reason why non meta cunts should not buy the game.

 

[TheZaius]

Ha ha, Gay-lo: Reach Around!

Oops, sorry, spoiled the review...

Couldn't he have reviewed the other non-multiplayer modes I think the game has?

 

[starwarsgeek]

Don't want to discuss multiplayer? Fine. Unprofessional to ignore a key component of the game, but fine...
But why not even mention Forge, Firefight, or Theater? Do those suddenly require backup?

You named it...key component.
Why do games have to be based on Multiplayer nowadays?
I remember when Multiplayer was a GIMMICK! A nifty thing to throw in.
Those games usually had far better and far LONGER campaigns too, because not so much money was invested in the Multiplayer.
Now it´s like "so we have the Multiplayer down...we use what is left over and tack on a campaign mode..."
Besides, we all know the Multiplayer experience can be quite the most annoying part EVER since so many moms buy those games for their kids...
You see, a truely good game doesn´t need Multiplayer, and a mediocre game isn´t gonna be saved by a good Multiplayer.
I would have liked if more money flew into the Singleplayer of Halo and Modern Warfare, making them longer and with better Storys or something, introducing more mechanics and stuff like that.

Because atleast I don´t buy games for the Multiplayer...

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if this was directed at me or if my post was just a launch-pad for your anti-multiplayer rant. Anyway, it's all about variety (and I will never understand why people on this website, the supposed intellectual community for gamers, hate variety so much). Why is it bad that there are games based on multiplayer? I love Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead/L4D2, Mario Kart, Mario Party, and Smash Bros. Focusing on multiplayer does not lower the quality of the game; anyone who says this is simply wrong. There is a difference between having a personal preference and arguing that everything that does not fit it is bad.

 

[JayDig]

Haha, I rationalized the lack of seatbelts by assuming their robo-armours had magnetic boots for outer space, that bugged me though.

I never play XBOX online either but I like this game for couch co-op. It's got a lot of features, despite ten year old gameplay.

 

[Chrinik]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure if this was directed at me or if my post was just a launch-pad for your anti-multiplayer rant. Anyway, it's all about variety (and I will never understand why people on this website, the supposed intellectual community for gamers, hate variety so much). Why is it bad that there are games based on multiplayer? I love Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead/L4D2, Mario Kart, Mario Party, and Smash Bros. Focusing on multiplayer does not lower the quality of the game; anyone who says this is simply wrong. There is a difference between having a personal preference and arguing that everything that does not fit it is bad.

There he goes an names games that are the complete opposite premise...
Of course you do not make a Mario Party and base it around being alone!
But these are exeptions...everything you named is an exeption.
Even some Racing games aren´t meant for Multiplayer, since the developers go to great lenghts developing challeging AI opponents for your carrier mode.

The games I meant, are SOLD on their Story and epic action throughout the campaign, but instead focus on the Multiplayer, because THAT is the only reason these games sell well...and if something sells well, you milk it...
Variety my ass.

Imagine Left4Dead being marketed as "the most awesome COOP Zombie survivalshooter!" and then the matchmaking is all fucked, it laggs all the time, the enemies are imbalanced, because the developers put their money into developing a funny Single Player story, and casted expensive voice actors for the 90 minute Cutscenes...

You see, I don´t say basing games on multiplayer is bad...It´s the false advertising.
It´s like I advertise to you, a shiney sportscar, and then spend all the interior money on more engine power before I sold it to you.

 

[Grahav]

oh shit he did do it...and he...slightly enjoyed it.....well Yahtzee you have shoved your dick into my skull and completely fucked my mind.

Slightly enough to hate it not loath it.

 

[starwarsgeek]

There he goes an names games that are the complete opposite premise...
Of course you do not make a Mario Party and base it around being alone!
But these are exeptions...everything you named is an exeption.
Even some Racing games aren´t meant for Multiplayer, since the developers go to great lenghts developing challeging AI opponents for your carrier mode.

The games I meant, are SOLD on their Story and epic action throughout the campaign, but instead focus on the Multiplayer, because THAT is the only reason these games sell well...and if something sells well, you milk it...
Variety my ass.

Imagine Left4Dead being marketed as "the most awesome COOP Zombie survivalshooter!" and then the matchmaking is all fucked, it laggs all the time, the enemies are imbalanced, because the developers put their money into developing a funny Single Player story, and casted expensive voice actors for the 90 minute Cutscenes...

My appologies. Your previous rant appeared to be directed at multiplayer games in general, not just ones that have an added single-player mode so you can continue to enjoy them alone.

The problem with your argument is that Halo is, at its core, a multiplayer game--it is not sold on its story; the multiplayer is the reason Combat Evolved was a hit. It belongs in the same list as those others. I could buy Smash Bros, Mario Kart, or Mario Party soley for playing the bots, and I would probably be just as disappointed as someone who buys Halo just to play the campaign alone. The possibility of single-play does not change the fact that these are multiplayer games.

 

[Chrinik]

snip

Well, they TURNED into multiplayer games BECAUSE the multiplayer proofed to sell better then a compelling single player experience.
Like the Call of Duty or Medal of Honor franchises...

 

[starwarsgeek]

Well, they TURNED into multiplayer games BECAUSE the multiplayer proofed to sell better then a compelling single player experience.
Like the Call of Duty or Medal of Honor franchises...

The only single-player-only mode in the entire series is the campaign from Halo Wars. Even back in combat evolved, you could chose to play the campaign either single-player or co-op. They are multiplayer games with a story, and that is not a bad thing.

Edit: And I guess the books were only meant for one user as well

 

[DarkKnightBob]

If the game is pure multi-player its a different argument

 

[starwarsgeek]

If the game is pure multi-player its a different argument

So, by removing the single-player option, you improve the game?