Zero Punctuation: Halo: Reach

[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?

 

[Geo Da Sponge]

You missed the point of me basically saying the game modes of Forge and Firefight are nothing more than a hyped up gimmick, and face it, those modes have been done before and way better than Halo could do. Note: Plants vs. Zombies hold out against hordes of enemies with a limited arsenal at your disposal. With Forge see Little Big Planet for PS3. And you're right about the changes in gameplay, I can no longer wield akimbo weapons (or dual wield) with pinpoint accuracy like before. The only aspect I found took away some of the seriousness (lol serious lol) of Halo. But whatever, no use arguing with a fanboy. Even though I've played all the Halo games, I apparently know nothing about them. So -yawn- I guess I'm done here. Maybe I'll go play some roller coaster tycoon and pretend it's Forge but with theme parks and...fun.

And the best way to show that something is a hyped up gimmick is to say that they're like games which are very fun to play? Can you really not see the difference between a first person arena based shooter which is designed for multiple players and a turret defence game? But of course, they both have waves of enemies and limited resources, they are exactly the same! No wonder people complain about how generic games have become when you only need a link as tenuous as this to say two things are the same!

It's also more than a little irrelevant that a game from a completely different genre has a better level editor. You get completely different experiences out of using them, so what does it matter if when one's better than the other when they are in no way competing with each other.

And oh yes, I am a fanboy of Halo. That therefore means that all my arguments on the subject are invalid on account of the fact that I enjoy it.

PS. I never said you know nothing about the games (other than a possible reason to explain your statement). I was merely questioning your utterly broken logic.

 

[Miral]

Wow, he liked it. Shocking.

Nice callback at the end, too. And a sequel to Oni would be awesome. I love that game!

 

[MetroidNut]

I'm quite glad Yahtzee pointed out something I happen to believe in - Halo is, in fact, not a generic FPS, because the standard of "generic FPS" is cover-based ironsights CoD-and-clones. So thank you, Yahtzee, for throwing what I consider to be a good bit of perceptiveness into your review.

 

[Netrigan]

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.

So, that huge marketing campaign telling us to "Remember Reach" was all about... multiplayer?

I'm sorry, it's being sold as a single player game, otherwise they would have called it Halo Tournament. I understand that Halo (like many previous games) have enduring popularity because of the mutltiplayer, which adds an enormous amount of longevity to a game. And that's the reason why most games these days put in some sort of multiplayer content (anything to help justify that $50 purchase). But they're not just dumping a half-ass single player campaign on us. They've been hiring big stars to voice a long, complex story.

And if you look at the gushing reviews, most of the critics site the single player campaign as a good reason to buy the game. They even release tons of tie-in books to flesh out the story, so, obviously, the Halo mythos is very, very, very important to the folks at Microsoft. Ergo, this is not a multiplayer game masquerading as a single player game and it's not much of a stretch for a critic to judge is solely on its single player game.

As for the Firefight mode? I've played a few games that offered it up as an option (was that one of the modes in UT 2004?). It is what it is. It's fun, but like the Challenge missions in Arkham Asylum or the race modes in Mirror's Edge, a lot of gamers are going to open it up, poke at them for an hour or so, then forget they ever existed.

 

[whycantibelinus]

i honestly thought he was gonna be more harsh on this... i found the campaign to be just as if not MORE frustrating... cant wait for Bulletstorm to bring back the badass

on another note he didn't mention the Firefight mode, which CAN be played single-player and it works just fine.

EDIT:

I am frankly amazed that Yahtzee did this, considering how bleh he was about Halo 3 and Halo Wars.

Also, I LIKED Oni.

they made a reference to Oni in the campaign (Oni Sword Base was a place you could fight)

ONI, as it is spelled, actually stands for Office of Naval Intelligence, and I don't think it's a reference so much as a coincidence since they have mentioned ONI since The Fall of reach novel which released like 8 months after the game Oni.

OT: I'm surprised as hell that he kind of sort of liked this game. I, as a Halo fan, was ready for him to rip it to shreds. Thanks Ben!

 

[starwarsgeek]

So, that huge marketing campaign telling us to "Remember Reach" was all about... multiplayer?

I'm sorry, it's being sold as a single player game, otherwise they would have called it Halo Tournament. I understand that Halo (like many previous games) have enduring popularity because of the mutltiplayer, which adds an enormous amount of longevity to a game. And that's the reason why most games these days put in some sort of multiplayer content (anything to help justify that $50 purchase). But they're not just dumping a half-ass single player campaign on us. They've been hiring big stars to voice a long, complex story.

And if you look at the gushing reviews, most of the critics site the single player campaign as a good reason to buy the game. They even release tons of tie-in books to flesh out the story, so, obviously, the Halo mythos is very, very, very important to the folks at Microsoft. Ergo, this is not a multiplayer game masquerading as a single player game and it's not much of a stretch for a critic to judge is solely on its single player game.

As for the Firefight mode? I've played a few games that offered it up as an option (was that one of the modes in UT 2004?). It is what it is. It's fun, but like the Challenge missions in Arkham Asylum or the race modes in Mirror's Edge, a lot of gamers are going to open it up, poke at them for an hour or so, then forget they ever existed.

I must not be getting my point across very well, sorry.

I'm not saying that the story and campaign don't belong. What I am saying is that the multiplayer is the biggest draw of the game (it is note-worthy that playing the campaign alone is an option, so even the story mode is not strictly single-player). The series is a great example of allowing either style of play, and neither should be ignored (if I gave the impression that I think the series is worthless without the multiplayer functions, then I must phrased it poorly...that is not what I meant)

And, for my original post that started the discussion, I was simply saying that Yahtzee--a professional who is getting paid to do this--should have a balanced review. He is ignoring well over half the game (Matchmaking/Custom Games, which keeps the fans playing it long after Reach has fallen. Theater mode, one of the greatest machinima tools of all time and a nifty way to save a moment that you want to show to someone later. Forge Mode, a great example of console level editting--which happens to support the custom games and machinima crowds while introducing a completely different type of game mode. Finally, there's Firefight, which I cannot talk about in detail because I haven't tried it myself yet, but I understand it is greatly improved from the ODST version).


As it stands, he's nothing more than someone being paid to troll. He rarely backs up his opinion--which is especially important when he is not showing gameplay while discussing the game. Most of his reviews, especially lately, are nit-picking rants about stuff that's not even important (like no seat belts in Halo, or the plot of Mario Galaxy 2)