Halo Reach Perfect 10! WTF?

[Evil_Weevil]

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.

Wait, you guys get early copies? I didn't know that The Escapist was that well known in the industry. O_O

OP: Dude, who cares? It's Halo, just because the writing sucks doesn't mean it's not good. This isn't BioShock for f*cks' sake.

...Uh, yeah. Multiple millions of unique monthly visitors.

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.

I say it's a 9 or 8. After all a perfect ten means it's pefect and if the story is complete stock then that's a big enough hole to prevent perfection.

Actually, a ten shouldn't mean literally perfect - without flaw. It should just mean that it's masterfully done.

That's why we use stars, honestly. People interpret someone giving a game a 10 as saying it is utterly and completely without flaw. Us giving a game five stars, on the other hand? Sure, it's technically the same thing, but if you see a game get 5/5 stars, you don't think "oh, it must be perfect 100%," you just think "damn, that must be a superb game."

Besides, even if the characters ARE fairly stock, they're likable enough, and the story is well told for all its cliches. I'm not going to spoil Tuesday's review, but it was the first time a Halo game felt genuinely emotional

As the thread starter I feel it my duty to try and justify my position. This being the internet that's somewhat more difficult to do in a reasonable way, so here goes...

As I said before I do not recognise the validity of a 10/10 score and nor do I believe that this represents an opinion that the game is "Godlike" to borrow a term. Instead I'm in agreement with you and Eren Murtagh that 10/10 is not necessarily perfect. What I would say though is that even with the advances in game design, the craft and detail present in graphical and audio work has been largely lacking from the story telling aspect of games.

I'm not saying either that every game should be Great Expectations or War and Peace (although I would like a game to attempt Kafkaesque, would be, interesting... ) but for a well read and widely circulated review site like IGN to explicitly belittle this part of games production is deeply disappointing to me as I believe games have the capability to be much more than the Summer Cinema Bonanza that I see currently.

 

[DustyDrB]

I hate to break it to you, but some of the most highly acclaimed games (by both reviewers and users) are games that are lacking in the story department: Halo, Modern Warfare, Zelda, Mario, Oblivion, the list goes on.

It's not such a hard thing to believe. A deep story is optional. It can be a blessing, sure. But in gaming, stories aren't always needed. My two favorite game series: Zelda and Mass Effect. One has a thin story template that's repeated over and over, the other is basically centered around the story. They both work.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Games are meant to be enjoyed and if so a game got a 10/10 it just means its a pretty damn fucking enjoyable game. All of you people who say 10/10 means everything has to be perfect are wrong. Games are created to be enjoyed and the people who played these games just really enjoyed them. Who the fuck said you had to agree with them?

I used enjoy way too many times in that.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

Do I know? No, not at all. Maybe it's because people are silly

There has to be another reason that that. I don't want to do some in-depth study of the human psyche, though. Finding out exactly where this whole thing started and why would be a lot of work for little to no reward. Maybe there's an existing study someone can point me to. Anyone?

 

[Uber Waddles]

Not everyone buys a game for story, just like not everyone goes to a movie for a story.

The fact that they can forgive the story is because the vst majority of people who buy this game ARENT expect a 40 hour campaign with a complex story. They're buying it because they like the gameplay.

I played the Beta, I liked the gameplay. Ive loved the gameplay from Halo, and the stories uptill ODST, which this seems to be this games inspiration.

Ive liked the Multiplayer, Single Player, etc. I like how Halo works in comparison to other popular FPS's.

For a game to get a perfect score, it doesn't have to do everything perfect. We'd have nothing. If some aspects are there to cover others, then thats just fine for me.

And I have a strange feeling if they reviewed it at a 5/10, we'd all be bitching to have that guy fired for under-rating it.

 

[GuerrillaClock]

I dare say they looked at the whole package to arrive at their conclusion. So what story is a bit samey. There is still forge, multiplayer, 4 player co-op, 4 player splitscreen, horde mode. I look at a game out there and most don't even offer half that stuff much less with the bungie polish and support. All things considered a meh story probably doesn't need to take to much off a ranking.

This deserves to be quoted because people need to read it more than once. With all the content in Reach, clearly that reviewer felt that having a lackluster story (not even a bad one, might I add, just not that great) was noteworthy but ultimately inconsequential when weighed up against the enormous suite of features on the disc. Clearly the experience as a whole was still enough to be deemed 'masterful' (NOT fucking perfect!) by the IGN reviewer. It's curious how IGN is getting ripped into when countless other reviewers have been saying exactly the same thing, but it's more fun to be cynical and edgy than accept that a popular franchise might actually be good, I suppose. I'll find out for myself in a day, as will everyone else.

 

[Doc Funky]

I really only scanned the posts here, because the whole "score argument discussion" thing really irritates me...but I was surprised at how many people are with the original poster on this one.

So a 10/10 is completely out of the question if there are any problems with the game at all...but a score of, say, 9.8 or 9.9 would be more palatable? Have you all really become that kind of video game fan? Ones that will throw a fit over one tenth of one point on an online review? I'm honestly surprised to find so many of you on a site that offers video game commentaries that are actually, y'know, deep and insightful.

I always love to see people bring out the "nothing should ever receive a perfect 10" argument, though, since it defeats the entire purpose of grading on any type of scale at all. I mean, if a perfect 10 is always out of the question, you could never grade on a scale of 1-9, either...because if 9 is the highest number, that must mean perfection as well.

I honestly think games should only be rated with WORDS, not with numbers..."Awful", "Bad", "Okay", "Good", and "Great" always work when I discuss games with my friends, and we never have these kinds of problems.

 

[icame]

I really don't care because i gave up on the franchise years ago. The single player campaigns are always short, had okay game play, that by the way, didn't revolutionize shit, and had filler plots. The multilayer isn't even good when you look at a game like counter strike which almost any computer can run now.

 

[Evil_Weevil]

I hate to break it to you, but some of the most highly acclaimed games (by both reviewers and users) are games that are lacking in the story department: Halo, Modern Warfare, Zelda, Mario, Oblivion, the list goes on.

It's not such a hard thing to believe. A deep story is optional. It can be a blessing, sure. But in gaming, stories aren't always needed. My two favorite game series: Zelda and Mass Effect. One has a thin story template that's repeated over and over, the other is basically centered around the story. They both work.

two great examples but why have we continued in this narrow-minded mentality that we can only have one or the other? Surely games designers and consumers (ideally, represented by responsible and impartial reviewers) want more from games than merely guntoting fun or chin stroking thoughtfulness. ANY media can be counted as successful imo if it simultaniously engages viscerally and mentally and I think games have the single greatest potential to achieve this, I just hope they can realise this potential sooner rather than later.

Recommendation for all of you who have been engaging with the original argument rather than some pathetic slagging match about score which everyone recognises as flawed, watch Extra Credits, just do it

 

[webby]

The Halo games are designed to stand on their own as GAMES. 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.

I can't say I agree with this logic if I'm honest. You can play any campaign without getting invested in the story, but why would you want to? You can't simply fall back onto other mediums and expect them to carry the story for you. It is up to the creators of the medium in question to create a compelling experience all around by themselves. Sure, it's fine to have an expanded universe and I rate some of the Star Wars additions as better than some of the movies (not a big challenge, but you know)., but at the end of the day the medium being reviewed at the time has to have the complete package itself. You can't take one aspect of the lore you're involved in (in this case the runny gunny shooty explodey wahey part) and ignore the rest.

Imagine a film doing that. It's just an hour and a half of tits, guns and violence and it's defended by somebody saying "but it's fine because there's this backlog of books you can read if you want the story!" That shit would not fly so why should it here?? Action films are expected to have a story (even if it's threadbare) and the best seemlessly weave a compelling narrative into the action (The Matrix) whereas other films rely on gunfights to see them through with a poor story (Shoot 'em Up isn't a terrible example of this).

I'm obviously not saying that Halo has a bad story, I'm yet to play it, but that leap of logic just niggled a bit.

TL;DR?? Films cant get away with using another medium to tell a story so why can games??

 

[Sangtrain]

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.

I had personally loved Halo 2. even with it's gigantic "Screw you" ending. Hated three when I borrowed it and played it. Will Reach make me love the series again?

 

[Evil_Weevil]

The Halo games are designed to stand on their own as GAMES. 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.

I can't say I agree with this logic if I'm honest. You can play any campaign without getting invested in the story, but why would you want to? You can't simply fall back onto other mediums and expect them to carry the story for you. It is up to the creators of the medium in question to create a compelling experience all around by themselves. Sure, it's fine to have an expanded universe and I rate some of the Star Wars additions as better than some of the movies (not a big challenge, but you know)., but at the end of the day the medium being reviewed at the time has to have the complete package itself. You can't take one aspect of the lore you're involved in (in this case the runny gunny shooty explodey wahey part) and ignore the rest.

Imagine a film doing that. It's just an hour and a half of tits, guns and violence and it's defended by somebody saying "but it's fine because there's this backlog of books you can read if you want the story!" That shit would not fly so why should it here?? Action films are expected to have a story (even if it's threadbare) and the best seemlessly weave a compelling narrative into the action (The Matrix) whereas other films rely on gunfights to see them through with a poor story (Shoot 'em Up isn't a terrible example of this).

I'm obviously not saying that Halo has a bad story, I'm yet ot play it, but that leap of logic just niggled a bit.

TL;DR?? Films cant get away with using another medium to tell a story so why can games??

^ This.

 

[The Rookie Gamer]

Jesus, why do people think a 10 means it's perfect in every way, and we therefore shouldn't give any game a 10. Why would we have 10 on a review scale if it can't be gotten?

 

[tunderball]

I understand completly where IGN and the OP are coming from. I am one of those people that believe games have the potential to become high art and include a narrative that is engaging and well told. However we are not at that point yet.

People praise games like Bioshock for the way they weave plot in and out of gameplay but you play this game on your own and yes it is fantastic if not lonely but I guess that's the entire point of the game. What I think IGN is trying to get at is that Halo - Reach is a balls to the wall, fun, shooting game and thats what people are going to play it for.

Me and my friends are all going to town tuesday morning buying a copy each get a few beers in and have a great time, isn't that what gaming is about? Halo isn't the most engaging of story experiences and never has been, the entire franchise revolves around producing games that are fun to play, you know that thing your supposed to have when you play computer games......fun.

Yes this probably should detract from the overall score and the games industry should be pushing for a more immersive experience all around. However I for one do not play Halo for its immersive qualities, I play it because they are damn good games.

 

[VegetaPrinceofSaiyans]

*sigh* the utter amount of ignorant fanboy bullshit I have been reading is amazing. They obviously did not read the OP because I see them continuously defend their precious Halo, when in all actuality, OP never stated that his problem was with Halo. He did state that his problem was with the hypocrisy in the IGN review which blatantly stated that Halo: Reach has flaws, but still gave it a 10/10. Obviously anyone with half a brain would realize that this is some Grade-A bullshit because how can something be perfect if you just openly admitted to it having flaws?

 

[John Funk]

As the thread starter I feel it my duty to try and justify my position. This being the internet that's somewhat more difficult to do in a reasonable way, so here goes...

As I said before I do not recognise the validity of a 10/10 score and nor do I believe that this represents an opinion that the game is "Godlike" to borrow a term. Instead I'm in agreement with you and Eren Murtagh that 10/10 is not necessarily perfect. What I would say though is that even with the advances in game design, the craft and detail present in graphical and audio work has been largely lacking from the story telling aspect of games.

I'm not saying either that every game should be Great Expectations or War and Peace (although I would like a game to attempt Kafkaesque, would be, interesting... ) but for a well read and widely circulated review site like IGN to explicitly belittle this part of games production is deeply disappointing to me as I believe games have the capability to be much more than the Summer Cinema Bonanza that I see currently.

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?

 

[Evil_Weevil]

I really only scanned the posts here, because the whole "score argument discussion" thing really irritates me...but I was surprised at how many people are with the original poster on this one.

...

I honestly think games should only be rated with WORDS, not with numbers..."Awful", "Bad", "Okay", "Good", and "Great" always work when I discuss games with my friends, and we never have these kinds of problems.

So as the OP can I ask you to follow my attempts to steer this thread back to the original line of argument, because whilst I agree with your last para here you have failed to appreciate that the argument I was putting forward is entirely to do with writing in games, and from there its spiralled into an argument about scoring in reviews.

 

[Eipok Kruden]

TL;DR?? Films cant get away with using another medium to tell a story so why can games??

Because films CAN get away with it. Terminator: Salvation isn't particularly story driven or deep, but it's a ton of fun and it adds a ton of little bits of info to the overall Terminator story as well as referencing a bunch of things from other Terminator movies. It stands on its own as a well made summer action movie, but it also adds to the Terminator lore as a whole.

 

[lukemdizzle]

this is very simple to wrap your head around when you look at other games IGN has given perfect scores to (they are few and far between) I think they said in the GTA4 review that the game wasn't perfect but the sum of the parts came together in a way that was so stunning that it warranted a perfect score. I think the same holds true for the review of reach. like it or not thats how some reviews work. I like that system personally when it comes to score reviews. imo the written review is way more important.