- The Ruckus 2010
- |
- Intrepid Legendary Member
Name's John. I'm a 21-year-old firefighter/EMT from lolhio who doubles as a die-hard Halo fan. I've been enjoying the franchise since 2001. My favorite iteration of Halo would have to be Halo 2 simply because I never got to experience the joy of a full-on Halo: CE LAN.
If you have any other questions, feel free to ask.
Oh yeah, and boot Zome.
Posted by: the pib
That's a subjective opinion.
Not really.
Young gamers have short attention spans, and COD Black Ops was released just two months after Reach was. Reach's population fell because of its competition, not its quality.
If Reach was good, they would have come back at least every once in a while rather than abandoning it altogether. I'd be very interested to see the return rates for Reach. I can think of several people off the top of my head who sold Reach shortly after launch because it was awful. If you don't think that Reach losing members due to competition isn't a direct reflection of its quality, then there are simply no words for you. If it was the better game, it would have retained the population. The members they lost to CoD would have returned had Reach been the game it should have been.
I'd say a 91% score on Metacritic, the average of 99 different reviewers, is a pretty strong indicator of a good game.
Not really. The game review industry d-rides Halo to no end. The reviews on Metacritic are exactly what I'm talking about- they came out shortly after the game's release. The top two critic reviews (and the ones I'm reading beyond that) are from roughly a month after its release. You tell me with a straight face that those aren't hype-influenced. The one from January 2011 gave it a 71. I'd be inclined to consider that far more objective seeing as how it was published four months after the game's release. The fact that all these reviewers gave it a perfect 100 should tell you something is wrong. From an objective viewpoint, Reach is definitely not a 100. If you really think that Reach was virtually perfect from a gameplay mechanic perspective alone (and that's without even touching the lackluster campaign, which has always been the thing that's mattered most to me in Halo), then you are so deluded that I cannot bring myself to value any opinion on game quality you may or may not have.
Again, most review scores don't mean much if anything at all because they are far from objective, much like your praise for this game.
Something like COD:BL releasing two months later, and the best selling game of all time MW3 releasing one year later? Yep.
Again, if Reach was the quality game it should have been, there would not have been such a mass-abandonment that for many was permanent. If Reach was a good Halo game, the population would have re-visited it occasionally, yet they didn't.
It's so predictable how haters always assume that Reach exists in a vacuum instead of in a marketplace of dozens of other games,
It's amazing how predictable it is that fanboys such as yourself classify anybody who dares to criticize Bungie's "swansong" a hater. I'm not a hater. When Reach came out, I had the hype goggles on just like everybody else. You seem to naively assume that I doomed Reach in my own mind to fail before it even came out. No. I was excited for Reach to come out. I'd thoroughly enjoyed every previous Halo installment. I enjoyed everything in the beta. Once the game had been out for a while and the hype goggles had worn off, I realized that there were tons of things wrong with Reach. I didn't start out disliking Reach. It earned my dislike which is something kids like you fail to comprehend.
I'd say that my gradual decline into realizing how much of an awful Halo game this was is more objective in nature than your seemingly blind fanboy praise. I'm not the one sitting here in denial over Reach's numerous blatant shortcomings.
a decline in its population is due to its quality and not its competition,
Again, it's pretty obvious that the game lost out to its competition as a direct result of its quality, hence the term competition. The game of better quality will win out, which was Black Ops. That's pretty sad if you think about it. Reach, with all of its new elements, lost out to the greatest rehash series ever to exist. But Reach is worthy of a perfect 100. Totally.
and their opinions about the game mechanics are objective facts.
Again, given how I came about my opinion, I'd say it's just a tad more on the objective side than yours. Not to mention I have facts and basic logical thinking to back it up.
You may think I'm nothing more than a "hater", but at least I don't blindly gargle whatever excrement comes from Bungie just because it bears the Halo name. Again, I'm not against change, but change was not implemented properly in Reach. It being beat out by its rehash competition is proof of that. Hardly a totally subjective opinion as you would like to believe. Still an opinion, but a far more objective opinion than what you've presented as of yet. Implying that bloom and armor abilities was not detrimental to Halo gameplay in Reach when all evidence points to the contrary is about as subjective as an opinion can get. You have presented no objective facts. Look in the mirror.
[Edited on 10.07.2012 10:47 AM PDT]