the reviews for Halo 4 is really weird … how it comes most of the top reviewers give Halo 4 a less than Reach’s score !!
Those numbers don’t mean -Yoink-. Play the game yourself and have your own opinion.
Reach got a 9.5 that’s pretty hard to beat. I don’t know if people realise it but Reach was a solid game.
-
firefight wasn’t as good as ODST but it still had more re-playability than spartan ops is esteemed to have (I don’t think spartan ops is meant to replay much though).
-
Halo Reach at higher difficulties was hard but Halo 4 is really damn hard so some reviewers got a bit frustrated I think.
That’s pretty much why. Halo Reach had very few issues and listen carefully:
It was only until after the game released most fans realised the multiplayer wasn’t that good, in fact a lot hated it
the same could happen with halo 4 although I doubt it. That’s probably why!
personally, i dont always trust game reviewers, everyone has their own opinion. BUT halo 4 is still AWEESSOOMMEEEEEEEEEE
> Reach got a 9.5 that’s pretty hard to beat.
OP, read what he said. Then think again how much do you weigh critics’ opinions.
I never pay full attention to these reviews anyway. They are just the opinion of one guy. Any fool can give an opinion. The only review I’ll ever trust is my own.
Did the same person that reviewed Reach also review Halo 4? It’s all too easy to say “IGN gave Reach an x/10” when really it’s actually “The person that wrote the review for Reach gave it an x/10”.
Also I think a lot of reviewers have made it clear that Halo 4 is the best Halo game that they’ve played. At least that’s the impression I’ve got from Kotaku, IGN, Gamespot, and Polygon.
Just remember - Why did Reach suck? It had crap systems and gameplay mechanics for competitive play.
Reviewers can’t comment on that because they’re not skilled players and they don’t get to play a hundred or two hours of multiplayer before making an evaluation.
Now, I do think Reach was scored too highly… I have no idea why so many reviews praised the campaign’s story and character development as improvements for the series, as both were quite bad, but Reach’s long term failings were things reviewers just couldn’t comment on.
Same for Halo 4… these scores don’t really mean anything.
Even if the has some changes, sometimes if it doesn’t change enough people feel like it’s repetitive or doesn’t offer up anything new or strategies that they didn’t think up years ago. If they double back and undo a new update or go back to what previously work it can be seen as lazy and not really innovating.
Have a look at Gears of War 3. That’s clearly the best version of any of the Gears of War games with the most variety and best amount of replayability and story. But it didn’t recieve as much praise because it didn’t really shake things up as much, just kept to what worked and fixed previous issues. Personally I think that after the patch that nerfed the DBS and made the Gnasher the go-to weapon again, people got tired of playing Gears 1 all over again.
When MW3 came out and I unlocked the custom classes, I noticed all my classes were the same classes I have been using for the last 5 years. I stopped playing because I was just doing it all over again.
I have seen people giving halo 4 8/10 and 9/10 while they gave reach 10/10. I think thats really weird. reach didnt deserve that score. maybe a 8/10. but nota 10/10.
Ratings don’t mean much.
Give it a few weeks/months and then judge it by yourself.
Once the novelty wears off things could be seen much differently.
Just look at Reach.
> Just remember - Why did Reach suck? It had crap systems and gameplay mechanics for competitive play.
>
> Reviewers can’t comment on that because they’re not skilled players and they don’t get to play a hundred or two hours of multiplayer before making an evaluation.
>
> Now, I do think Reach was scored too highly… I have no idea why so many reviews praised the campaign’s story and character development as improvements for the series, as both were quite bad, but Reach’s long term failings were things reviewers just couldn’t comment on.
>
> Same for Halo 4… these scores don’t really mean anything.
They were improvements. While I love Halo, the story and characters in the game are rather subpar. ODST showed as Bungie was capable of making good characters and atmosphere, Reach showed us they’re capable of making a good story with better fleshed out characters and theming. No, it’s now the best, but it shows us they’re developing as game developers and writers.
Everything else about Reach is subjective.
Word. The fact that Halo Reach got a a flippin 9.5 is reason enough to distrust game reviews. A lackluster campaign paired with a wildly unbalanced and random multiplayer isn’t even deserving of a 6. Lets pretend that Reach was the first game in the series… I’d give it an 8. But it had a name to live up to, sooo i belive it should have gotten a 7 at best. None of this really matters though, I’m going to play Halo 4 and hopefully, I will enjoy it.
I think the reason why reach go really good scores is because of the introduction of the armor abilities. Many reviewers on halo 4 are complaining how 343i are being too conservative for the fans, hence the lower score and I think this is the reason critics just should not be trusted.
We, as halo fans, would probably hate to see halo getting turned into something completely different. Reviewers, a good bunch of them, like to see things move forward.
> Reach showed us they’re capable of making a good story with better fleshed out characters and theming. No, it’s now the best, but it shows us they’re developing as game developers and writers.
>
> Everything else about Reach is subjective.
Fleshed out characters? Really? You mean hispanic-stereotype Emile? How about big-guy Aahhhnold stereotype Jorge? Or Noble 6 with less personality than Master Chief? Ohhhhhhhh maybe you mean token-asian-guy-with-nothing-to-do Jun?
Seriously??? There’s not a 3-dimensional (or I’d argue even a 2-dimensional) character in that entire game.
I’m jaded against the story because I read Fall of Reach which tells a far superior story and sets a far more consistent mood for the events of Reach than the game ever sets. But it’s hard to argue it’s a better story than the space opera of Halo’s 1, 2, and 3.
Because despite the fervent hatred it has here among some, Reach was actually an awesome game. Was it as balanced as Halo 3? Probably not. Did that detract from the fun those it was geared towards had? No.
The massive customization of customs, Forge World, Firefight, etc. made it a 10/10 game for many more than people here would admit. It most definitely wasn’t a failure, though, as some here claim.
Reviews and scores aren’t meant to rate a game over another . They are meant to give readers a general heads-up on what to expect from the game and how people generally feel about the game . How good the game is to you literally depends if YOU enjoyed it or not . Or at least that’s how I see it 
> > Reach showed us they’re capable of making a good story with better fleshed out characters and theming. No, it’s now the best, but it shows us they’re developing as game developers and writers.
> >
> > Everything else about Reach is subjective.
>
> Fleshed out characters? Really? You mean hispanic-stereotype Emile? How about big-guy Aahhhnold stereotype Jorge? Or Noble 6 with less personality than Master Chief? Ohhhhhhhh maybe you mean token-asian-guy-with-nothing-to-do Jun?
>
> Seriously??? There’s not a 3-dimensional (or I’d argue even a 2-dimensional) character in that entire game.
>
> I’m jaded against the story because I read Fall of Reach which tells a far superior story and sets a far more consistent mood for the events of Reach than the game ever sets. But it’s hard to argue it’s a better story than the space opera of Halo’s 1, 2, and 3.
Emile was black.
You also have to remember the caliber of games on the market at the time as well. What got a 9.5 back when Halo: Reach was released may not get the same score by today’s standards.
I like to equate it to the X-Games. The first guy to do a back flip on a dirt bike was awarded with ridiculously good scores. Now-a-days, you have to be able to pull a back flip just to be competitive.
It’s funny how most people here are saying Halo 4 deserves a higher rank the Halo Reach.
How many of you have actually played Halo 4?
Save your judgments. There’s no sense in getting worked up about this; especially about critics.