Halo - Flawless review?

So I’m brining this up because on my dashboard there was an advert for halo 5 and ign called it ‘flawless’. As a fan of all halo games and an active player, the term flawless doesn’t come to mind. Take the campaign for example, bland exposition, over exaggerated and hyped cut scenes which would have been nice to actually play as masterchief, and nothing in Halo 5 connected to things in Halo 4, for example Spartan ops. The campaign overall to me felt rushed and the fact that you only play as the chief himself for 2 or 3 missions is appalling. Multiplayer is far from ‘flawless’, yes it encourages the user to either grind or spend real money, but the RNG system shows no long term dedication and passion for the game. Arena is ok, apart from that some playlists having low player count, (I’m looking at you, Breakout), warzone is a fun mode, but is prone to spawn killing, and enemies always going straight to the opponents base to cap all 3, spawn trapping them, this is annoying and is going to be hard to fix at all. Firefight was fun, until you realise that many people are lower levels with little to few reqs, so actually winning a match is very rare. The spawning of some boses is ridiculous, and how 343 thought that killing 2 warden eternals at level 2 on Apex is possible, I don’t know. Something’s such as the wasp are a great addition to the game, but overall the poor quality of the campaign and the mixed atmosphere over multiplayer doesn’t make this game ‘flawless’. Lets hope that all the money from req packs goes directly in to the ‘flawless’ halo 6, and that were not fed lies to hype experience of the game’s launch.

What? Lol. Flawless yeah right. It’s quite possible one of the most flawed halo we’ve had.

Aside from the campaign being a total letdown, I think Halo 5 is the best thing we’ve had since Halo 3. It has the best Arena I’ve seen in years and Warzone is crazy fun. The addition of microtransactions doesn’t disrupt the balance and it pays for free DLC (we all saw what happened with Halo 4’s expansion packs). Firefight definitely needs work.

Flawless? Haha naw, but at least it’s a step in the right direction.

> 2533274879407634;2:
> What? Lol. Flawless yeah right. It’s quite possible one of the most flawed halo we’ve had.

Technically it’s the second most.

Whatever way you slice it or enjoyed it, Halo 2 holds that crown.

As for the OP, look no further on the review than “IGN” and you’ll probably figure out that reviews by them aren’t exactly the greatest or most critical.

> 2533274826920712;4:
> > 2533274879407634;2:
> > What? Lol. Flawless yeah right. It’s quite possible one of the most flawed halo we’ve had.
>
>
> Technically it’s the second most.
>
> Whatever way you slice it or enjoyed it, Halo 2 holds that crown.
>
> As for the OP, look no further on the review than “IGN” and you’ll probably figure out that reviews by them aren’t exactly the greatest or most critical.

Yeah H2 had many issues, but it was the beginning of xbox live so more understandable I suppose.

It’s a Microsoft promotion for a Microsoft Studios published title on a Microsoft platform. What did you expect the ad to say?

Mainstream reviewers just give all the games produced by big companies an A+ for effort. Their reviews are rarely insightful or in the gamer’s best interest. Seriously think back to the last time you’ve seen a paid journalist absolutely rip a mediocre triple-A product to shreds. It’s pretty much never happened.

Yet on the other hand when I read user reviews from actual gamers I’ll often see people undeservedly giving a game a 0/10 and posting the most unfair or completely wrong criticisms possible, even when at the very least the game in question is still an average quality game. As in they are making no actual effort to objectively review the game whatsoever. Yeah I’m sure people are snickering at me in the corner, but -Yoinks!- sake, even I’m not that bad. Even I wouldn’t rate Halo 5 below a 4, with my only reasoning being “game is trash lmfao”.

Is there any hope for gaming journalism?

Hey you know, IGN hates water. Spartans die in Water. So it’s a match made in heaven. Except tidal 7/10. Too much water.

> 2533274972430429;1:
> So I’m brining this up because on my dashboard there was an advert for halo 5 and ign called it ‘flawless’. As a fan of all halo games and an active player, the term flawless doesn’t come to mind. Take the campaign for example, bland exposition, over exaggerated and hyped cut scenes which would have been nice to actually play as masterchief, and nothing in Halo 5 connected to things in Halo 4, for example Spartan ops. The campaign overall to me felt rushed and the fact that you only play as the chief himself for 2 or 3 missions is appalling. Multiplayer is far from ‘flawless’, yes it encourages the user to either grind or spend real money, but the RNG system shows no long term dedication and passion for the game. Arena is ok, apart from that some playlists having low player count, (I’m looking at you, Breakout), warzone is a fun mode, but is prone to spawn killing, and enemies always going straight to the opponents base to cap all 3, spawn trapping them, this is annoying and is going to be hard to fix at all. Firefight was fun, until you realise that many people are lower levels with little to few reqs, so actually winning a match is very rare. The spawning of some boses is ridiculous, and how 343 thought that killing 2 warden eternals at level 2 on Apex is possible, I don’t know. Something’s such as the wasp are a great addition to the game, but overall the poor quality of the campaign and the mixed atmosphere over multiplayer doesn’t make this game ‘flawless’. Lets hope that all the money from req packs goes directly in to the ‘flawless’ halo 6, and that were not fed lies to hype experience of the game’s launch.

I agree; the campaign is a mess. The multiplayer, however, is “flawless” imo

> 2533274819302824;7:
> Mainstream reviewers just give all the games produced by big companies an A+ for effort. Their reviews are rarely insightful or in the gamer’s best interest. Seriously think back to the last time you’ve seen a paid journalist absolutely rip a mediocre triple-A product to shreds. It’s pretty much never happened.
>
> Yet on the other hand when I read user reviews from actual gamers I’ll often see people undeservedly giving a game a 0/10 and posting the most unfair or completely wrong criticisms possible, even when at the very least the game in question is still an average quality game. As in they are making no actual effort to objectively review the game whatsoever. Yeah I’m sure people are snickering at me in the corner, but -Yoinks!- sake, even I’m not that bad. Even I wouldn’t rate Halo 5 below a 4, with my only reasoning being “game is trash lmfao”.
>
> Is there any hope for gaming journalism?

check out angry joe on youtube. he will restore your hope