Google+

Halo: Reach super review

Great
Back to Article

326 comments

  • NardPuppy - October 11, 2010 5:18 a.m.

    Mr. Barratt I totally agree with you statment in podcast 119 about this meaning something to the people who have read of of the novels and fiction in accordance with this universe (which I am a part of), but to all of the other people who haven't this campaign feels less than epic. And even I, having read ALL of the pieces of fiction in accordance to this universe, felt this campaign was light at points. I don't totally agree with your review, but I understand where it came from.
  • Shinn - October 8, 2010 12:59 p.m.

    Just thought i'd point out that "ma'am" (as in the female version of sir) when pronounced with an english accent (such as Jorge's from Halo: Reach) could be mistaken for the american "mom". It does sound completely different mind you, and it's very unusual to confuse the two. Jorge actually refers to Halsey as "ma'am" in Reach. Not mom, they say mum in most countries outside of america. So, yeah, it didn't expect you to know anything. (at least not during that scene). And I understand how someone could take so long to finish this game. 4 hours on normal, 5 or so on heroic.
  • cainy - October 8, 2010 10:53 a.m.

    This one goes all the way up to 11!!!! BRILLIANT, thankyou Bungie.
  • quakesarmy123 - October 6, 2010 5:20 a.m.

    this game was nothing new when i played it nothing changed at all same generic shit that got old real quick i mean halo was cool back when it was new but now its dead in my opinion thats just me
  • AuthorityFigure - October 2, 2010 2:05 a.m.

    Ewww... Not better than HALO 3? How'd that happen.
  • wraith509 - October 2, 2010 12:44 a.m.

    @sam451lovesaynrandtista you do realize that my name is about halo right, i like both game franchises but they both are getting a bit dull to me.im going to buy fallout new vegas or ACbrotherhood instead of blackops or this.
  • SillyPigeon - October 1, 2010 5:02 p.m.

    300!!! I finished the campaign last night. Reach is the first Halo game i've played all the way through. Charlie Barrett you were spot on! It's a 7/10, good, had it's moments but it is seiously lacking in the current generation of story telling. The story is incredibly weak, i think even if i was a halo nut i'd still think it was weak. There is no back story, there is no reason given for what the fuck is going on and why you should give a shit. It truly is: here is a gun go shot aliens. Which is fine and can be fun. BUT! everywhere you look halo is treated with such reverence like it's an epic important story and reach was supposed to be it's crowning glory. Well it's not! The story is weak, the characters are cheaply thrown together and given accents instead of actual personalities. The big dramatic moments are missed by fading to black between loads. It feels rushed/lazy and gives you no reason to care about what is going on at all. Maybe games like mass effect and uncharted have spoiled me when it comes to story and characters with personalities. Overall good game, fun game. Just stop pretending it's more than that because it's not!
  • ultimatepunchrod - September 29, 2010 10:14 p.m.

    gah i just heard Tdar 119 about this review. if you like halo you'll like this game. it seems ridiculous that theres so much backlash for AN EIGHT out of ten. Giantbomb gave it a 4/5 (which is the same score) saying the EXACT same thing, so its not like gamesradar is the only site with this kind of score. BLAM!!!
  • FFSamurai - September 27, 2010 9:05 p.m.

    I have not played the game and have no interest in actually commenting on the game itself. I just wanted to thank all of the crazy people who gave such hilarious mocking fodder to to Talkradar Episode 119. I listened to that particular section twice and hearing people bs over a score that is still pretty darn good so passionately was really, really funny. Thank you again, I look forward to the next "Epic" hate mail.
  • FeathersMcgraw - September 25, 2010 3:34 p.m.

    Its really immature to be whining over an eight and posting huge butthurt posts, grow up halo fans your making gamers look bad.
  • dontshootthereviewer - September 25, 2010 5:09 a.m.

    i know this is gonna annoy people but i agree with the review the campain was fun and i think it got a fair score
  • buckybantam - September 24, 2010 4:09 p.m.

    Jesus - Halo diehards really are the new Sega fanboys. Do me a favour and go on Rotten Tomatoes and see how many of the thousands upon thousands of films get a "fresh" rating from absolutely EVERYBODY. Better yet, please find the email addresses/web sites of all the reviewers who gave a negative review of every film you ever liked and spend your time ranting at them instead. Actually, the comparison is even more ludicrious, because this game got 8/10. Which is a very positive review. Christ, I'd like to see some of you guys go toe-to-toe with Ebert over his review of The Dark Knight. Mr Ebert: "But I said I liked it, I thought it was a great film." Halo nutter: "You asshole!! It wasn't 'great'!! It was fucking awesome!! Perfect, even!!! YOU KNOW FUCK-ALL EBERT, YOU MALODOROUS VERMIN!!!!"
  • ELpork - September 24, 2010 1:35 p.m.

    damn... I'm happy they didn't read my review... I gave it a 4.5
  • Sala106 - September 24, 2010 3:04 a.m.

    You guys are stupid if you got bummed because of this review, its just one guys opinion
  • DicksmashMcIronCock - September 23, 2010 4:42 a.m.

    I hate how you have such a unique opinion. It makes you a more interesting writer and a more believable reviewer because you show different opinions. God, its like you try to be good at your job.
  • TedDidlio - September 22, 2010 7:56 p.m.

    PS: Notice that I didn't write my criticism until I finished I the game and had played the multiplayer. My gut reaction was definitely that Charlie was wrong, but I held back commenting/final judgment on the article until I'd played the game. Ok, that's all.
  • lincc289 - September 21, 2010 2:30 p.m.

    go!go! About you, fashionable tide Story will start from here! http://fogz.eu/8tthy
  • TedDidlio - September 21, 2010 6:13 a.m.

    I should mention my last post probably has a few typos, so my apologies for that. My problem with the multiplayer review is very simple, but it's extremely serious and I believe completely indefensible. As I read through Charlie's review of the multiplayer, despite being puzzled and annoyed that it was being given a separate but equal score to the campaign, I was agreeing with every point I heard. He ranted and raved about how fresh yet familiar the combat was, how the maps and forge mode were great, how firefight is better than ever, how this is THE BEST Halo multiplayer has ever been. I read through 3 times; not a SINGLE negative comment. Then he gave it a 9. Now, when a game (or in this case, part of a game I suppose) is given a 9, most of the review will focus on how great it was, but then, usually near the end, the problems with it will be discussed. The reviewer will explain why, despite being a blast, because of problems/annoyances/glitches A, B and C, it gets a 9 instead of a 10. Charlie did not do that. The multiplayer review reads like a 10 because it is completely, 100%, absolutely bereft of a single criticism. That just, doesn't sit right with me. I understand that the other writers need to jump to Charlie's defense from petty, asshole-ee criticism, both as his collegue and his friend. I know that Charlie's a good guy, and a good games journalism, but I couldn't help but take further issue with the logic behind some of the defense. To say that "If you say 8 is a failure, you're part of the problem" is kind of silly when talking about a game with this much money, fandom and legacy behind it. An 8 is not a failure for a new IP, or a sequel to a good game. In fact, it's a success. But for a Halo game, the biggest FPS franchise in history, for a game that is following up a 10/10 (ODST was not the next big entry in the Halo series, it was a hold over between 3 and Reach, of course) is IS a failure. Now I wasn't demanding a 10. I think a 10/10 review for Reach is the most accurate score for it, and I think it deserves it, but I was ready to defend Charlie and Gamesradar if it was given a 9, despite disagreeing with it. There ARE things to be said against it. But I think an 8 was simply unfair. It gave the single player undue sway in the score, it took for granted the refinement of the controls, and it put Reach on par with games far below it's caliber. Halo is not of the same quality as the Sony Move game, Sports Champions, or Singularity. If Charlie enjoyed the the game an 8 out of 10, that's one thing. But there's a certain amount of objectivity that goes into reviewing. As Brett has said before, despite not liking Halo 3 much at all, if he reviewed it for a site or magazine, he would have given it a 10. I don't like WoW, but if I reviewed it, I would certainly give it a 10, because it does what it sets out to do and it does it amazingly. I just, wouldn't enjoy it on a personal level. As a long time, loyal user of the site and listener of the cast, I hope my opinion is acknowledged and respected. I will continue to read and trust Gamesradar, and I do not and will not hate Charlie Barratt over this. Again, I'm just, a disappointed, frustrated reader.
  • TedDidlio - September 21, 2010 5:56 a.m.

    I love Gamesradar. I love Talkradar. I love all the guys involved with it. I love Charlie Barratt. But I think this review is flat our poor. I think it's safe to say you all know I'm not a troll, and that I'm a long time reader/listener, and this is my honest, loving, level headed opinion. I cannot jump to Gdar's defense against the criticisms over this review; I think they're just, right. Some of them are being absurd, poorly articulated childish dicks, but this review deserves serious criticism. I'm explain why I feel this way. Keep in mind, I truly do still love Gdar, Tdar and Mr. Barratt himself. I hope that as a loyal, long time, levelheaded, rational user of the site, SOMEONE will take what I say seriously. This is not hate mail. Separating the single player from the multiplayer was a big mistake. First off, its still the same Halo. The feel is the same, the controls are the same, the combat is just as satisfying in both. Secondly, to separate the two and then give equal weight to the single player just seems silly in 2010. This is not 2003; People generally don't play the single player over and over like they used to. Second problem: Charlie took the tightness of the combat for granted. The quality of the tuning of the mechanics alone make the single player more than a 7. It's as if he had never played a shooter that DIDN'T get the mechanics perfectly. I know that's not literally true, but it seemed almost that way. Third problem: The lack of research done about easily knowable things was frustrating. Charlie said, when comparing Reach to ODST, "you meet a mysterious female scientist who provides you with controversial new orders." This is just a lack of Googling. If he'd taken a mere, 2-3 minutes, a simple Google search (Dr. Halsey Halo) of the so-called "mysterious female scientist" would have told him exactly who she was, on the VERY FIRST result. (http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Catherine_Elizabeth_Halsey) This is one of the only "in" things about the Reach novel/expanded fiction that Reach has in it. It is not required to know who she is previously to enjoy and understand the game, and a simple Googling of her name would tell you EXACTLY who she was. (Founder of the Spartan program. She recruited them as children, ages 4-6, from their home planets.) So, she's far from a mysterious rogue scientist. Fourth problem: A number of exaggerations and untrue statements. I'm not calling Charlie a malicious liar, but that doesn't change the truth or legitimacy of some of his claims. "Alas, no. You can still die easily at the glowing hands of a kamikaze Grunt, your toughest opponents are still Hunters or Wraiths and your armored, specialized friends – outside of cut scenes – don't offer that much more help than the Marines or ODSTs. In fact, the only time we saw any of them utilize the new Armor Abilities was when we accidentally drove a Warthog in their direction, forcing the automatically programmed use of an Armor Lock shield." First off; You can still die at the hands of a kamikaze grunt? Of course you can, 2 close range plasma grenades easily killed Master Chief, who was, like the characters in Reach, a Spartan II. Bungie never suggested they'd be more powerful. Same goes for the claim about Hunters and Wraiths. Also, the claim that AI spartans ONLY used their armor abilities to not get killed by friendly 'hogs seems to be a lack of attention; at least in my playthrough, I saw them use it many times. Fifth problem: The claim that story assumed we know everything about the Halo universe is just simply untrue. The only thing from the expanded fiction that comes into play is that there are more than 1 spartan, something you can just see visually, and don't need to know about from the novels. And, as previously mentioned, Dr. Halsey, who the player does not need to know from the novels to appreciate in the game, although a Google search would tell them all they need to know. It's nice to have played the previous 3 games to know who Captain Keyes is, or who Cortana is, but it's far from necessary. Overall, the review of the campaign just took the tightness of the mechanics, the cleverness of the AI, the beauty of the graphics and the lack of dull moments for granted. I dare anyone to compare the Reach campaign to another "7" First Person Shooter and agree that they are of the same caliber. Next comment will be about the multiplayer review. Please keep in mind I'm writing this with love for Gdar, Tdar and Charlie. I'm just frustrated and disappointed with my favorite site and a writer I really, really like.
  • Grif - September 21, 2010 4:51 a.m.

    I can understand why a non hardcore Halo fan would not find this the best of games. The storyline didn't seem very emotional to me, although I did enjoy it. As for multiplayer, I know I will be playing it for a long time, and I'm sure a lot of people will too.

Showing 21-40 of 326 comments

Join the Discussion
Add a comment (HTML tags are not allowed.)
Characters remaining: 5000

More Info

Release date: Sep 14 2010 - Xbox 360 (US)
Sep 14 2010 - Xbox 360 (UK)
Available Platforms: Xbox 360
Genre: Shooter
Published by: Microsoft
Developed by: Bungie
Franchise: Halo
ESRB Rating:
Mature: Blood, Violence
PEGI Rating:
16+

OR…

Connect with Facebook

Log in using Facebook to share comments, games, status update and other activity easily with your Facebook feed.