Halo Reach Perfect 10! WTF?

[suubersnake]

So I personally don't give a rat's colon about the Halo franchise. It's just not my thing, I respect it for it's success and I feel that IGN, gamespot and pretty much any other site that says that a complex opinion can be turned into numbers, is suffering from degree of brain damage. Other than a 10/10 being perfect and a 0/10 not being playable, what does every other number mean? If a game gets 9/10 does that mean that it's 90% good? But in the end the quality of games/movies/music/turdage is all subjective, just as much as I don't understand why my friends can't get enough of Halo, my friends can't understand why I think that Planescape: Torment is one of the greatest overall RPGs ever made.

And yet, despite not being particularly original and having mostly stock characters, the story is at least engaging and provides reason enough to want to progress other than "these guys are bad." I think it's the best story (or at least, the best-told story) in the series.

It doesn't get in the way of the game, it's functional, the characters are likable, and there are some definite "oh shi--" moments. By FPS standards, it's fantastic. Why should it be marked down thusly?

Not to sound pretentious or like a dick, but since when does being an FPS make an fairly cliche story with stock characters any more acceptable than a well thought-out skillfully written story? If you are trying to look at it critically it shouldn't be any more acceptable having a Halo story be less well written than a Mass Effect story, or even a bungie written Halo story be less than one written by Hiroyuki Kawasaki (for those who didn't watch Halo: Legends that was the writer of Homecoming.)

Why should Bungie be any more exempt from creating something well written than Bioware. God knows if Mass Effect 3 came out with a story that was pulled right out of cliches with stock characters who were uninteresting people would be marking them down heavily for that, and they would be noting it. While yes, Mass Effect holds an emphasis on conversations and is heavily story driven, but that doesn't mean that the story is any less important in the Halo Universe. It honestly has a ton of potential, I was completely pulled in when I skeptically watched Halo: Legends, well, at least during Homecoming, to the point where I actually wanted to play a scenario built around that universe. Why couldn't they have done that for me in the actual games?

Just what is it that makes First Person Shooters so special that a story is considered fantastic when it is either average or slightly above average?

In other words, why shouldn't Halo: Reach be be marked down thusly?

[/rant]

Again, I'm sorry if I came across as a dick.

 

[Xanadu84]

First off, rounding. They gave it a 96 or so, losing a few points to the storyline, so its close to 10/10 then 9/10.

Secondly, storytelling is important to video games in the way that Comedy (Or similar genre) is important to Movies. It is a part of movies that is great, and can lead to some amazing moments. However, it is also only ONE way that amazing moments can be had. It is certainly important, but if some entrees into the field skip over utilizing that particular aspect of the medium, that's not a weakness. It's just their approach. It's also fine to mix it up, and rely only a tiny bit on "Comedy". A few little examples of it here and there might make for some great variety, and if if it's not as, "Funny" as other, purely comedic movies, well the loss is negligible. Maybe even a blessing in disguise, because it means the "Comedy" isn't stealing any thunder from the main attraction.

Or to put it another way, if an absolutely gorgeous model happens to be a member of PETA, I'm not going to not give her a perfect 10 because of her failing. Because her failing, though interesting to know, really doesn't matter at this point.

 

[Miles Tormani]

Snip

A story being well-told can make up for a lot of clichés in the story itself.

For example, Tales of Symphonia's story is as cliché as it can get, but I consider it to be one of my favorite JRPGs ever. This is partially because, in my opinion, the story is so damn well told I don't care about the fact that I've seen its main plot points a million times.

EDIT: My guess is that John Funk feels the same way about Reach's story.

 

[Why do I care]

... and? Look how many places gave Final Fantasy XIII, Heavy Rain and Starcraft 2 10/10.
Shitty sites are unwilling to piss off big name companies so just go along with the hype.

FFXIII: HATED IT, Heavy Rain: ...COULD be better, and SC2: ...Woah.

YOU JUST CANT GIVE A GOOD GAME A 10/10 BY SAYING IT'S GOOD, BUT THE STORY IS NOT THERE! IT DOESN'T WORK! THIS GUY SAID IT BEST!

You can't simultaneously call a game perfect and say it has a bad story. THAT IS NOT LOGICAL!

 

[Naheal]

Perhaps it's that the gameplay isn't mediocre.

Good gameplay alone does not warrant a 10. If you hand out a 10 to a game, it must earn it in story, character development, setting, and gameplay.

While I will agree that the gameplay isn't mediocre (I enjoyed what little I got to play during the beta) I wouldn't say that it was the best damn thing I've ever seen. In the end, it's still Halo.

 

[John Funk]

So I personally don't give a rat's colon about the Halo franchise. It's just not my thing, I respect it for it's success and I feel that IGN, gamespot and pretty much any other site that says that a complex opinion can be turned into numbers, is suffering from degree of brain damage. Other than a 10/10 being perfect and a 0/10 not being playable, what does every other number mean? If a game gets 9/10 does that mean that it's 90% good? But in the end the quality of games/movies/music/turdage is all subjective, just as much as I don't understand why my friends can't get enough of Halo, my friends can't understand why I think that Planescape: Torment is one of the greatest overall RPGs ever made.

And yet, despite not being particularly original and having mostly stock characters, the story is at least engaging and provides reason enough to want to progress other than "these guys are bad." I think it's the best story (or at least, the best-told story) in the series.

It doesn't get in the way of the game, it's functional, the characters are likable, and there are some definite "oh shi--" moments. By FPS standards, it's fantastic. Why should it be marked down thusly?

Not to sound pretentious or like a dick, but since when does being an FPS make an fairly cliche story with stock characters any more acceptable than a well thought-out skillfully written story? If you are trying to look at it critically it shouldn't be any more acceptable having a Halo story be less well written than a Mass Effect story, or even a bungie written Halo story be less than one written by Hiroyuki Kawasaki (for those who didn't watch Halo: Legends that was the writer of Homecoming.)

Why should Bungie be any more exempt from creating something well written than Bioware. God knows if Mass Effect 3 came out with a story that was pulled right out of cliches with stock characters who were uninteresting people would be marking them down heavily for that, and they would be noting it. While yes, Mass Effect holds an emphasis on conversations and is heavily story driven, but that doesn't mean that the story is any less important in the Halo Universe. It honestly has a ton of potential, I was completely pulled in when I skeptically watched Halo: Legends, well, at least during Homecoming, to the point where I actually wanted to play a scenario built around that universe. Why couldn't they have done that for me in the actual games?

Just what is it that makes First Person Shooters so special that a story is considered fantastic when it is either average or slightly above average?

In other words, why shouldn't Halo: Reach be be marked down thusly?

[/rant]

Again, I'm sorry if I came across as a dick.

With games like Mass Effect, the story is part of the core gameplay experience. Dialogues, character interactions, etc. The gameplay is almost always mediocre; you play it for the story. Consequently, the story needs to be well written.

With Halo and most other FPS, the focus is almost always on the gunplay. It's why the multiplayer is such a core part of the game, since people play that for hundreds of hours without any sort of story whatsoever. The game carries the story, rather than the inverse for games like KotOR or Dragon Age.

And a story being well-told can make even a cliche'd story attractive.

 

[webby]

Snip

But... Wait, I never said that it's alright for a game to have a story that doesn't say anything. Halo 2-5 have fun stories that move the campaign along and give your actions reason, but they aren't really that deep if you aren't looking for depth. They don't spell everything out. There's an insane amount of depth if you look for it, but it isn't required to enjoy the story. That's what I was saying.

I find it the same with Terminator. There's actually quite a bit of story and detail (not really character development, but story development for the resistance and SkyNet) if you're looking for it and there are a lot of details that add to the overall lore. It's not as well done as the Halo games and it isn't quite as well woven into the background, but it's there. It was just an example. If you still don't understand what I'm saying, then there's nothing I can do to make it clear to you. Try playing through Halo 3 again, except this time think about everything that happens, listen to all the dialogue, explore the environments, read the terminals, put some effort into uncovering the finer points of its story. If you don't care about putting that kind of thought into it, then Halo just isn't for you.

My (probably overlong) rant earlier was never about the Halo series, the Halo series is just what was being discussed when you made statements I personally disagreed with. Those being:

Their stories exist as fun ways to drive the single-player campaigns for the everyone who isn't a huge Halo fan. For everyone who IS a Halo fan, they provide lots of insight into the Halo universe as a whole.

When I think of something that is "driving the plot" I think of an uninteresting story element that is put in place simply to give the protagonist a reason to go forth and wreck peoples shit. Mario is saving a princess, the dude from Shoot 'em Up is protecting a kid, it's filler between set pieces. I don't want filler but I don't expect to have to be a fan of the series to enjoy the story. This game is a new chance to make me a fan of the story, but it won't do that by giving me a filler plot that is only interesting if I'm already a fan.

You can play them without getting invested in the story. If you want to actually get into the story instead of just playing the campaign, you are expected to delve more deeply into the expanded universe by way of books, comics, short stories, short films, etc... I don't understand why you're expecting the stories of the Halo games to stand by themselves as deep character driven sci-fi masterpieces when they aren't intended to.

Here's the crux of my complaint. You say yourself that you are expected to fill in your knowledge of the universe away from the game. This isn't just "go and play Halo 1 or 2 if you want to understand the story" it is "invest hours of your spare time so this shooter has a good story". At least that's how I read it. Even having to go back to previous titles is poor though, I played HL2 after HL1 without any issues and felt involved in the universe. This statement seems to imply that the majority of the story is outside the games. Star Wars has probably more additional storylines and tie ins than any franchise going but you don't need to know anything about them to enjoy the movies. Expecting players to learn the story from other mediums is unacceptable. It's fine for little "in jokes" or similar things, but any games story should stand on it's own 2 feet.

Again, I'm not criticising the Halo story in the above comments. Halo is just what you made the statement that I disagree with about. My basic points are simple though, all games, whether its a sequel, a prequel, a new beginning, about a film, about a book, about a TV show or whatever, every game should give you the story in the game. You shouldn't have to read characters back stories, motivation or favourite food in a separate novel. Once more, I'm not saying that Halo does this (although it might, I'm not entirely sure), what I'm saying is that your earlier comments seemed to condone games that did have a filler plot as long as they had storylines elsewhere to back it up.

Damnit, I always run long in these things:
TL;DR (again)?? - I wasn't criticising Halo, some of your comments made it sound like you thought games with a filler plot were fine as long as they had interesting stories in some other form of medium, I disagree with that and think every game should be able to stand up by itself and say "I'm here, I'm queer, get used to it!" (or something else, whatever)

 

[Lord Beautiful]

Perhaps it's that the gameplay isn't mediocre.

Good gameplay alone does not warrant a 10. If you hand out a 10 to a game, it must earn it in story, character development, setting, and gameplay.

While I will agree that the gameplay isn't mediocre (I enjoyed what little I got to play during the beta) I wouldn't say that it was the best damn thing I've ever seen. In the end, it's still Halo.

I'm not saying that it does warrant a perfect score. It's just that there seemed to be an implication that the game was completely mediocre strictly because of its story, regardless of the gameplay quality.

 

[dillirgaf]

most likely they just played halo 1, 2 or 3 and just got confused and though it was Reach

 

[eezaak]

I stopped reading after IGN and perfect score.

 

[Inco]

Having just beat the campaign, it's easily the best campaign (and the best-told story) of the Halo franchise. Make of that what you will.

The only opinion i willing to take seriously about the games story on this forum. Having been the only person to play it so far.

Just to state, isnt the overall score not a representation of the averages of the smaller parts, but in fact a "gut feeling" of the overall product and whether it was fun. If the story was penalized, it would be done so in the story section of the review points.
I swear (unless they have changed it) that ign states that their overalls are NOT averages of sub-scores.

 

[PayneTrayne]

Well that score makes sense when you look at the criteria. There isn't anything about story line in the scoring, so you can't get a bad mark for something you aren't being marked for. Think of it like walking into an exam with your fly down. Sure it sucks, but the professor isn't looking for it.

 

[Tdc2182]

Whaa?...

Then that means that its not a ten out of ten...

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

It's IGN. Of course they're going to give one of the most overly anticipated games of the year a perfect score. And it's Halo, so that only solidifies it.
From what I've seen, the good ad campaign is the only remotely brilliant thing about it. Then again, the Halo franchise has never been one to stimulate intellectually. It's competent in comparison with other FPS games, but that's all it really has going for it, other than insane amounts of hype.

 

[Vigormortis]

You know, I partially agree with the OP. Devoting at least two paragraphs of a review to stating how bad an aspect of the game is, a fairly large aspect at that, but then finalizing the review with a so-called "perfect score" is questionable if not just down-right stupid. You can't just arbitrarily "forget" a part of the game experience and go solely on opinion as the basis of a review.

Now, this isn't entirely IGN or Bungie's fault. Though, IGN's propensity to give over-glowing reviews to hyped, big-budget titles has earned them a bad reputation. Really, it's the flawed and sometimes illogical scales and ratings systems these "reviewers" use. That, and most base their critiques entirely on opinion instead of technical merit.

I've always felt a true critique of, say vidja games, should be based around two separate scales. One based on technical merit and the other play experience.

For example, let's say we have two 10-point-scales. One devoted to each criteria I listed above. The critical scale would be a gauge on how well the game was designed. How well each aspect of the game was developed and how well they fit into the whole. So, based on IGN's review, the technical scale would rate Halo: Reach between an eight or a nine out of ten. Seeing as they found many design flaws with the story/campaign. However, the play experience/opinion scale, being the one that gauges how much fun the reviewer had playing, would give Halo: Reach easily a nine or ten out ten.

Sadly, as most reviewers or critics are unlikely to adopt such a scale. Reviews will continue to be based almost entirely on opinion. Just look at the discussion here. Despite the best efforts of some, the entire discussion has turned into everyone decreeing, "my opinion is better than yours".

 

[Antari]

IGN's reviewer's have been taking bribes since they opened the doors. They're just being stupid about it now.

 

[Jadak]

Whether a good story merits a deduction in the rating or not is entirely dependent on the reviewer. No, I wouldn't expect the story to be an example of literary genius, but so what? Why should a game have to have an amazing narrative in order to be great?

If it's enjoyable in every way, including the campaign regardless of the story, then why should it be rated any worse? Particularly since the story isn't "bad", or poorly done, it's just not an amazing piece of creativity, which in practice, is no different then a game that has an amazing story but it's simply "not for you". It might impact some peoples enjoyment of that one aspect of the game, but it does not change the quality of the game.

 

[Wintermoot]

for some reason Halo easily gets overated my Halo 3 box calls it the best game of the era or something although it is VERY SHORT jut ignore them

 

[AvsJoe]

IGN was just judging the game on its own merits. Kinda like you shouldn't judge a porn for story either, or dock the score of a melodrama because it didn't have an awesome motorbike chase or raptors eating bacon.