> Hence why you don’t trust the accuracy of IGNorant people.
lol
For a re-skin of a game that’s 10 years old, that’s really good…
I cant say I’ve bought many games based on review. 8 is a pretty good score for a 10year old game. Now fingers crossed I should be playing this tomorrow ^,^
> For people saying “An 8 is good,” that isn’t the case anymore. Video games rated less then a 9 usually have a tendency to be mediocre to bad. 10 years ago an 8 would be good, not today.
No a 8 today is still pretty good. People today just have this idea that anything below a 9 is horrible.
cause of this
so frustating
> They also called MW3 “amazing,” and gave it a 9.0. Yea I don’t exactly think the reviewers know what they’re supposed to be reviewing at IGN…
We clearly have different opinions.
For a ten year old game, that’s incredible consider that it is relativity the same game with some gimmicks, terminals, new Reach maps and skulls added in. X-play gave the game a 5/5 if you didn’t know. 
Think about it, 343 could have been like Crapcom (excuse me Capcom) and just up the resolution and repackage the game. Instead, 343 and Saber choose to make CE:A a love letter to the fans; a good example of fan service done right and though the game has defintley shown it’s age in the face of modern FPS shooter mechanics. It is still an epic, if flawed experience but the positives outweigh the negative, especially if you have sweet tooth for nostalgia and don’t mind dropping 40 bucks for the Campaign and the sweet new maps for Reach.
Some of you wouldn’t be happy with a 9, games have to be always have to be a 10 to be considered good. Those review numbers mean nothing but the reviewers opinion on the game and by no means says the game is perfect. If you like the game (and common who doesn’t enjoy CE?) then get it. If you don’t, that’s fine just dont’ go cry on the forum, that’s what your mom is for. The review done by Ign was more than fair though not of the highest quality IMO but still when did reviews determine if a game is good or not? Personal experiences with a product > reviews and this is coming from someone who purchased Guilty Gear 2: Overture and that game is as obscure as it gets (mediocre reviews but that game is ton of fun IMO).
Also contrary to popular belief, IGN isn’t paid off. That’s just butthurt fanboy’s trying to express angst that someone didn’t have the same opinion as they do. In my eyes both CE and CE:A can’t be measured by a score. It’s just that great of a game, a timeless classic that’s up there with Super Metroid, Ocarina of Time, The genesis era Sonic games, Mario 64 etc.
First of all, IGN is a joke. Second, so called “professional” game critics RARELY know what they’re talking about. Same with movies, and anything really.
> For a ten year old game, that’s incredible consider that it is relativity the same game with some gimmicks, terminals, new Reach maps and skulls added in. X-play gave the game a 5/5 if you didn’t know.
>
>
> Think about it, 343 could have been like Crapcom (excuse me Capcom) and just up the resolution and repackage the game. Instead, 343 and Saber choose to make CE:A a love letter to the fans; a good example of fan service done right and though the game has defintley shown it’s age in the face of modern FPS shooter mechanics. It is still an epic, if flawed experience but the positives outweigh the negative, especially if you have sweet tooth for nostalgia and don’t mind dropping 40 bucks for the Campaign and the sweet new maps for Reach.
>
>
> Some of you wouldn’t be happy with a 9, games have to be always have to be a 10 to be considered good. Those review numbers mean nothing but the reviewers opinion on the game and by no means says the game is perfect. If you like the game (and common who doesn’t enjoy CE?) then get it. If you don’t, that’s fine just dont’ go cry on the forum, that’s what your mom is for. The review done by Ign was more than fair though not of the highest quality IMO but still when did reviews determine if a game is good or not? Personal experiences with a product > reviews and this is coming from someone who purchased Guilty Gear 2: Overture and that game is as obscure as it gets (mediocre reviews but that game is ton of fun IMO).
>
>
> Also contrary to popular belief, IGN isn’t paid off. That’s just butthurt fanboy’s trying to express angst that someone didn’t have the same opinion as they do. In my eyes both CE and CE:A can’t be measured by a score. It’s just that great of a game, a timeless classic that’s up there with Super Metroid, Ocarina of Time, The genesis era Sonic games, Mario 64 etc.
-Yoink!- Decimal. Why did you have to translate my thoughts into flawless literature form?
> > For a ten year old game, that’s incredible consider that it is relativity the same game with some gimmicks, terminals, new Reach maps and skulls added in. X-play gave the game a 5/5 if you didn’t know.
> >
> >
> > Think about it, 343 could have been like Crapcom (excuse me Capcom) and just up the resolution and repackage the game. Instead, 343 and Saber choose to make CE:A a love letter to the fans; a good example of fan service done right and though the game has defintley shown it’s age in the face of modern FPS shooter mechanics. It is still an epic, if flawed experience but the positives outweigh the negative, especially if you have sweet tooth for nostalgia and don’t mind dropping 40 bucks for the Campaign and the sweet new maps for Reach.
> >
> >
> > Some of you wouldn’t be happy with a 9, games have to be always have to be a 10 to be considered good. Those review numbers mean nothing but the reviewers opinion on the game and by no means says the game is perfect. If you like the game (and common who doesn’t enjoy CE?) then get it. If you don’t, that’s fine just dont’ go cry on the forum, that’s what your mom is for. The review done by Ign was more than fair though not of the highest quality IMO but still when did reviews determine if a game is good or not? Personal experiences with a product > reviews and this is coming from someone who purchased Guilty Gear 2: Overture and that game is as obscure as it gets (mediocre reviews but that game is ton of fun IMO).
> >
> >
> > Also contrary to popular belief, IGN isn’t paid off. That’s just butthurt fanboy’s trying to express angst that someone didn’t have the same opinion as they do. In my eyes both CE and CE:A can’t be measured by a score. It’s just that great of a game, a timeless classic that’s up there with Super Metroid, Ocarina of Time, The genesis era Sonic games, Mario 64 etc.
>
> -Yoink!- Decimal. Why did you have to translate my thoughts into flawless literature form?
The end result is the same no? I am pretty sure you would have worded it in similar fashion Glad to be of service however.
Because they paid IGN to give it a higher score. Never ever for any reason ever trust any game magazine or show’s score. They all get payed huge sums of money to give games better scores. This is true even more so for AAA titles. Look at Call of Duty. Year in and year out it gets 90+ for a rating even thought there is literally nothing new in it. That’s because Activision pays the reviewers money to give it a better score.
> For people saying “An 8 is good,” that isn’t the case anymore. Video games rated less then a 9 usually have a tendency to be mediocre to bad. 10 years ago an 8 would be good, not today.
So you are saying Halo CA Is bad
get out.
The game gets the same rating it did 10 years ago because it is nothing different.
expected from a remake.
> The game gets the same rating it did 10 years ago because it is nothing different.
it made game of the year. no remake is game of the year material.
lolIGN
Pretty bias reviews if you ask me.
That’s generous considering it uses Reach for multiplayer.