Zero Punctuation: Halo: Reach

[Azaraxzealot]

you have a point there, but as someone who has a lot of friends and siblings, buying games that have multiplayer is kind of required, and i think since MOST people have siblings (and not more than one console) it makes sense to buy games with some sort of multiplayer so that they don't keep bugging me every five seconds with "when do i get to play?!!!"

it WOULD be better if i were an only child instead of all games having multiplayer tacked on

I sense sarcasm.
I also have a brother, but maybe it is because we both are way out of puberty or something that we don´t annoy each other for games.
I recently played Reach with a friend Co-op and borrowed it from him, it is fun.

And I totally forgot that coop is also counted into multiplayer...I was thinking of Online MP.
But anyway. The only games I delibretly buy for multiplayer is Coop based games like Army of Two or Kane and Lynch, to play with my brother, offline.

it's only half sarcasm. i really DO enjoy games with offline multiplayer that doesnt require me to buy more TVs and consoles because of my sibling situation

yahtzee probably doesnt understand because he lives alone. maybe if he were married then he'd get why having co-op in games is something that should be added into reviews, but as far as online multiplayer goes? no. never.

 

[Jon Shannow]

I tried nailing my mate's feet to the door of the falcon with a spiker, strange thing, it just made him fall out

 

[kikon9]

Really? Because practically everybody I know bought it for the multi-player. Whenever I play online my I will see all my friends playing reach and it says "in matchmaking game" You significantly underestimate the number of people who buy a game on multi-player alone. I guarantee you that in a month's time there will still be a ton of people playing online. Also, you do realize that online is not just random game joining, it also allows you to play with specific friends over x-box live. And given that most gamers keep games they buy, a friend will ask if they want to play reach. As crazy as it sounds, some people actually like playing with friends.

Oddly enough, I keep running into people who bought it for the multiplayer, but aren't really fans of it. They picked it up because all their friends had it, but much prefer other games. Usually Modern Warfare.

But I really think you over-estimate how many people go on-line with games. It's a decent chunk of people, but MW2 sold something like 15 million copies (not sure of the breakdown for the 360) and the total number of people playing XBL the day of its release was 2 million, which is supposed to be a record for XBL.

Xbox 360 sales are about 42 million worldwide... total X-Box Live accounts passed the 23 million in February. And I'm pretty sure that's both Silver and Gold accounts.

There's some impressive numbers and Microsoft is making a lot of money off those Gold accounts... but I still doubt that more than 50% of Halo 3 buyers spent a significant amount of time on-line. Such as I went into one Gears Of War match prior to letting my trial Gold membership lapse, making up my mind that this wasn't for me and prefer to pick up more games for single player.

There's a significant audience for MP and developers are definitely keen on developing MP content to counter their games being hugely popular... as a used game. But I know lots of folks who rarely if ever go on-line and just looking at the numbers I can find, I think they're in the majority.

While I will concede that more people buy games for single player, in this specific instance I guarantee you that there will be a good number of people who will consistently play the Halo Reach Multiplayer.

 

[UrbanCohort]

That bit at the end (4:10) must be how Yahtzee feels when he's demanding that games have some degree of novelty to them.

 

[Netrigan]

While I will concede that more people buy games for single player, in this specific instance I guarantee you that there will be a good number of people who will consistently play the Halo Reach Multiplayer.

There will not soon be a want of Call Of Duty or Halo multiplayers... but I think the numbers still indicate that there's plenty of room for single-player only reviews. Likewise, there's plenty of room for a multi-player only review.

And the point I've made several times in this thread. If Yahtzee isn't interested in multiplayer, dedicated a sizable chunk of his review to that feature would be useless.

Case in point, the Halo Wars review. He's not a RTS fan. He has no idea what makes a good RTS. And his review is just a lot of "I don't really get this." If he's not a MP fan. If he has no idea what makes a good MP game. Then his review is just going to be a lot of "I don't really get this."

Much better for everyone if he sticks to what he is passionate and knowledgeable about, even if that means that a review for a popular MP game has one of its most notable features ignored.

 

[Ampersand]

Yay! Gay-lo Reach-around !

Seriouly its just another FPS... they all were ... big deal why?

Yeah, it's just another FPS game, just like Half-life, TF2, Call of duty, Medal of honour, BFBC2, Bulletstorm, crysis, killzone, duke nukem, borderlands etc...
So we should disregard them all, because they're all the same thing right?

No, that's like saying fallout: new vegas shouldn't get any hype because its 'just another RPG', they're all different games and if everyone had the same attitude as you then there would be about 10 games in existance.

Halo didn't bring anything new unlike many of your other cited games. The shield system was out waaay before gaylo.

Because a game needs to be 100% original to be in any way good? Wrong.
It's a finely polished game, made for the fans of the series and in my opinion the best fps out there.

 

[kikon9]

While I will concede that more people buy games for single player, in this specific instance I guarantee you that there will be a good number of people who will consistently play the Halo Reach Multiplayer.

There will not soon be a want of Call Of Duty or Halo multiplayers... but I think the numbers still indicate that there's plenty of room for single-player only reviews. Likewise, there's plenty of room for a multi-player only review.

And the point I've made several times in this thread. If Yahtzee isn't interested in multiplayer, dedicated a sizable chunk of his review to that feature would be useless.

Case in point, the Halo Wars review. He's not a RTS fan. He has no idea what makes a good RTS. And his review is just a lot of "I don't really get this." If he's not a MP fan. If he has no idea what makes a good MP game. Then his review is just going to be a lot of "I don't really get this."

Much better for everyone if he sticks to what he is passionate and knowledgeable about, even if that means that a review for a popular MP game has one of its most notable features ignored.

I see your point. I have to admit I didn't think of it like that before.

 

[Phototoxin]

Because a game needs to be 100% original to be in any way good? Wrong.
It's a finely polished game, made for the fans of the series and in my opinion the best fps out there.

No but a game might actually be interesting. It was sheer blandness. But its my opinion.

 

[Ampersand]

Because a game needs to be 100% original to be in any way good? Wrong.
It's a finely polished game, made for the fans of the series and in my opinion the best fps out there.

No but a game might actually be interesting. It was sheer blandness. But its my opinion.

You're opinion is fine. I thought bioshock was bland and i know alot of people love that game. Different strokes for different folks I guess.

 

[Netrigan]

Because a game needs to be 100% original to be in any way good? Wrong.
It's a finely polished game, made for the fans of the series and in my opinion the best fps out there.

But do fans of the game *need* a review to buy the game.

I've done some unpaid comic reviewing for Ain't It Cool News (I still technically am doing them, only I haven't been bothered to write one in months because I'm in video game mode and not comic mode... under the name Baytor if you're even slightly interested) and the fan mentality is always a bit of a minefield. There are certain books and creators who you can't criticize without having lots of people come down hard on your opinion. Often times, these people don't quite realize that what they love about something isn't completely in tune with non-fans. Fans love call outs to past Continuity, even if such scenes are completely baffling to anyone not in the know.

And most of the time, you're not writing reviews for the fans. The fans are going to pick it up no matter what, but they will nit-pick your reviews to death if you don't know absolutely fucking everything about their one true obsession. Sometimes, we're going into these books with completely fresh eyes or after a long hiatus from the book. We try to find a decent jumping on point and write the review from there, basically trying to lead any like-minded people to (or away) from a book. And this approach is completely at odds with what fans think the review should be.

And I can see their point and this is the reason why you have tons of fan review sites, but I also think the outsider's view of a property is a very important to put out there.

I think the responsibility of a critic is to express his opinion as clearly and honestly as possible. And with enough points of view, a potential customer should be able to find an opinion that is in tune with their sensibilities and attempt to make an informed choice from there. Metacritic turning it into a scorecard is kind of useless beyond identifying things that are generally well liked or hated, although I do love the convenience of being able to read through multiple reviews from one handy site.

 

[simon oeyen]

I'd certainly love to watch the video, but ever since the new player is here I can't here a single thing...

 

[xgoggsx]

sooooooo, how much did bungie pay you to not crush this game to itty bitty pieces?

 

[Spencer Brower]

Halo 1 was a great game, only 8 weapons, great level design, a not too horrible story, and good multi player. Ever since then it's gotten progressively worse and has become complex, predictable, and BORING. Also, Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to add in so much extra 3rd Person shit? I must say though, the worst thing about reach is the fact that it was made with the Havok engine. So what Bungie, after 8 games (Marathon counts) you finally got too poor to make it yourselves? decided to use the same fucking engine that was used to make Wolfenstien?

Marathon was part of Halo series? :S

when the fuck did that happen =|

yep, it's a prequel. kinda

 

[Spencer Brower]

Yay! Gay-lo Reach-around !

Seriouly its just another FPS... they all were ... big deal why?

Yeah, it's just another FPS game, just like Half-life, TF2, Call of duty, Medal of honour, BFBC2, Bulletstorm, crysis, killzone, duke nukem, borderlands etc...
So we should disregard them all, because they're all the same thing right?

No, that's like saying fallout: new vegas shouldn't get any hype because its 'just another RPG', they're all different games and if everyone had the same attitude as you then there would be about 10 games in existance.

Halo didn't bring anything new unlike many of your other cited games. The shield system was out waaay before gaylo.

Because a game needs to be 100% original to be in any way good? Wrong.
It's a finely polished game, made for the fans of the series and in my opinion the best fps out there.

Halo 1's level design and gameplay mechanics were so good they didn't need a lot extra, but the vehicle controls were unique (not that anyone else gives a shit). but if they did bring something new, it would have been even better

 

[Spencer Brower]

okay, yathzee that's not fair, the levels have changed since Halo 1, they've gotten progressively SHITIER! Halo 1's levels were fun, had a nice difficulty curve, and gave you a sense of vastness on the levels and sometimes even included free roaming (the island in Halo 1). Halo 1 had great non-repetitive levels.

 

[Buizel91]

Halo 1 was a great game, only 8 weapons, great level design, a not too horrible story, and good multi player. Ever since then it's gotten progressively worse and has become complex, predictable, and BORING. Also, Who the fuck thought it would be a good idea to add in so much extra 3rd Person shit? I must say though, the worst thing about reach is the fact that it was made with the Havok engine. So what Bungie, after 8 games (Marathon counts) you finally got too poor to make it yourselves? decided to use the same fucking engine that was used to make Wolfenstien?

Marathon was part of Halo series? :S

when the fuck did that happen =|

yep, it's a prequel. kinda

But Mararthon has different aliens :S different stuffs D:

i am so confused.

 

[Buizel91]

okay, yathzee that's not fair, the levels have changed since Halo 1, they've gotten progressively SHITIER! Halo 1's levels were fun, had a nice difficulty curve, and gave you a sense of vastness on the levels and sometimes even included free roaming (the island in Halo 1). Halo 1 had great non-repetitive levels.

Excuse me...the same level is used twice...going in the control room and then coming out of the control room...

Yeh doesn't repeat itself at all does it? only difference was the flood lol

 

[Spencer Brower]

okay, yathzee that's not fair, the levels have changed since Halo 1, they've gotten progressively SHITIER! Halo 1's levels were fun, had a nice difficulty curve, and gave you a sense of vastness on the levels and sometimes even included free roaming (the island in Halo 1). Halo 1 had great non-repetitive levels.

Excuse me...the same level is used twice...going in the control room and then coming out of the control room...

Yeh doesn't repeat itself at all does it? only difference was the flood lol

I meant the fact that you can go around the whole island, and do what you wanted

 

[Buizel91]

okay, yathzee that's not fair, the levels have changed since Halo 1, they've gotten progressively SHITIER! Halo 1's levels were fun, had a nice difficulty curve, and gave you a sense of vastness on the levels and sometimes even included free roaming (the island in Halo 1). Halo 1 had great non-repetitive levels.

Excuse me...the same level is used twice...going in the control room and then coming out of the control room...

Yeh doesn't repeat itself at all does it? only difference was the flood lol

I meant the fact that you can go around the whole island, and do what you wanted

You couldn't do what you want...sure you could walk around and tackle the Objective from a different angle, but that wasn't new.

as soon as you kill the covenant their, that's it, nothing more to do, if they kept spawning then fair enough, but they didn't.

But as with most shooters, you can't do anything until you get to/complete the objective.

Halo 2 also had a bit of exploration, the first mission on the New Halo. So did Halo 3 in the Jungle and the first mission you get to pilot a Hornet. ODST had huge exploration and Reach when your Outside Sword Base...

All Halo Games have had some degree of exploration.

 

[Myles Bradley]

What the hell is this a political debate!?! SHUT THE HELL UP, NOW! XD