What's with the boring reviews?

posted by StarborneRanger

Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 10:38:53 PM EST

Before purchasing my copy of Halo 3, I actually took the time to read several reviews. Sure, the scores were, for the most part, very exciting, but the reviews themselves were more often than not very boring and uninspired. It seemed like the reviewers found nothing to really love about Halo 3, nothing that would cause them to break out of their shell and yell "awesome!" Many reviewers said things about how, when looked at separately, the different components of Halo were nothing new, but when added altogether, it certainly offered the best value (campaign, multiplayer, forge, saved films, all the online stuff). Even 1Up's Dan Hsu, who gave it a 10, wrote a review worth one word: "blah."

But after playing through just the first two missions of Halo 3's campaign, before even touching multiplayer, I was completely blown away. So what was wrong with the reviewers? Well, maybe they were playing the game WITH THEIR EYES CLOSED? One reviewer (I don't remember who, sorry) said "Not all weapons are used in the campaign. I never found the flame thrower, for example." Uh... bullshit. It's in there at least three times. And, on that topic, why has the flame thrower been described as "useless?" It kills even the larger flood forms in like 2 seconds and has a decent range and ammo supply.

I guess my point is, for me Halo 3 really took me back. It instilled the same feelings of awe in me that the original did. It made me go "wow" time and time again. And I haven't even finished the campaign or played a single multiplayer match yet. I know it's not perfect, and that for the most part the gameplay is "tried and true," but why are reviewers so afraid to let their emotions show? Are they all bent on being the "critic?" Do they think that makes them better writers, or gives them increased credibility? Or did they honestly not find anything to really love about Halo 3?

/rant


Tags: (all tags)

Comments Disabled | 16 comments

  •  or maybe they (none / 0)

    just wanted to get it done so they could get back to playing? :P I know i would.

    by BoxinLeprechaun on Wed Sep 26, 2007 at 10:56:38 PM EST

  •  Funny (none / 0)

    I was thinking about it today and I was thinking, man it must've been tough to write these reviews without including any spoilers.  

    by papi blez on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:32:55 AM EST

    •  BINGO (none / 0)

      I think this is why they are pretty much watered down.  ARSTechnica actually did a good job, they reviewed just the SP but he finished the campaign during a two stint at a MS office.  So not the best environment for playing, I think that may be some of the problem too.  

      Wizard's First Rule: People are stupid! Things perceived as real are real in their consequences.

      by Major Dan on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 11:04:21 AM EST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Agreed, (none / 0)

    Shoe's review was just confusing. His review was a mixture of "meh" and "best game ever!". Then again, I know he only had like 2 days to write it so I'll give him a little slack.
    But I'm just glad I'm able to play the game and not worry about the reviews anymore. Although I'm sure Bungie wasn't satisfied with the "9.6" or so average.

    by SweetTea023 on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:44:10 AM EST

    •  I think Shoe's approach to these reviews (none / 0)

      are to approach them from a unique standpoint.  He points out all the flaws but then justifies why it's a 10.  That's exactly what he did with the Gears review if I remember correctly.  The other thing is that there's no way that someone can take in all that Halo 3 has to offer in 2 days even if they went 48 hours straight.  I think that's part of the reason the game got a 10.

      by papi blez on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 12:59:20 AM EST

      [ Parent ]

  •  well (none / 0)

    i dont see what were so good about the reviews, i really didint like the gamer, only infection is the fun thing about this game, i mean if your a reviewer and you review this game lower than an 8.0 then people will be on your back for that, and im not bragging or anything, but COD 4 is way better than this game, and i mean the beta is way better than this

    "Si, Yes i do tiles, i kill the nappy haird hoes too, yes i do tiles to, siiiiiii" gamertag = DesertFoXel

    by FyroFoX on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:41:18 AM EST

    •  Fanboi lol (none / 0)

      After finishing Halo 3's campaign, it will be hard for COD4 (or any game for a LONG while) to surpass it.

      MP is SUPER expansive and fun. Forge and Saved films along are innovations far greater than any game I've seen announced online. Also, the game has been reworked to a perfect formula between Halo and Halo 2. Also, the amount of customization in custom matches is SO detailed, you can make a gametype for anyone (pirates ahoy!).

      Also, 4 player co-op online is a huge deal for me (i am still pissed COD4 has NO co-op). The custom elite armor is also a great answer to COD4's custom weapons, because your entire model changes. also, color scheme, personal logo etc.

      The game is the ultimate package for campaign, co-op and especially MP.

      I am buying COD4 without a doubt, the gameplay is awesome imo, but the pure amount of stuff to do cannot be overlooked.

      COD4 is not WAY better than this game. Its all a matter of taste and you could find it more appealing to you, but that still doesn't justify such a statement.

      Not all who wander are lost

      by Zoso Fan on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 01:53:45 AM EST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Everyone is entitled to their opinion (none / 0)

      I'm not saying I'm mad because reviewers didn't recognize Halo 3 as "THE BEST GAME EVAR OMG!" But rather, just that they don't allow themselves the time or take the effort to truly get into the game before they reviewed it. I know, they're rushed, and everyone wants to have the first review out, but I'd much rather read a review that had a lot of thought and time put into it than something that was thrown together in 48 hours. And that goes for any game.

      "The creatures were friendly and could see in four dimensions. They pitied the Earthlings for being able to see only three." -Slaughterhouse-5

      by StarborneRanger on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:00:39 PM EST

      [ Parent ]

    •  laulz to the max. (none / 0)

      If I remember right, you're Sig was something like this "halo 3 and cod4 are both good, no one is better than the other." a little contradictive + hypocritical are we?

      Gearheads Rule #1: Don't fuck with the Gearheads.

      by Grymm on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:19:03 PM EST

      [ Parent ]

      •  We (none / 0)

        all know that fyrofox is in love with COD4 and in his opinion its better than Halo3.  Which im fine with, its really quite funny reading his posts and he many times tries to hide is overwhelming love for COD4.  Hmm I think he may be a bit biased when it comes to COD4/Halo3! And fox dont take this the wrong way, I have just as much love for COD4 as you do but you have to open your mind to different games.  If you dont want to thats fine but you're making yourself a target when it comes to opinions in the future@!!

        Oct 21/08 Nov 7/08

        by carr on Sat Sep 29, 2007 at 04:40:51 PM EST

        [ Parent ]

  •  halo 3>all (none / 0)

    nuff said.

    Im "Geared Up" are you?

    by Scotty247 on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 08:56:21 AM EST

    •  Let me help you with that (none / 0)

      PC Shooters > Haylow 1+2+3

      fanboi.

      Gearheads Rule #1: Don't fuck with the Gearheads.

      by Grymm on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:19:45 PM EST

      [ Parent ]

      •  While I am against blind fanboism (none / 0)

        I still have to disagree about PC shooters being better than Halo. I can't stand the rapid-twitch play style of games like Quake, UT, or really anything that lets you use a mouse to play. But that's just my personal preference. I will say that PC shooters are far far ahead in terms of user created content and free downloadable content as a direct result of that. I think that's the biggest drawback of console games (of all genres).

        "The creatures were friendly and could see in four dimensions. They pitied the Earthlings for being able to see only three." -Slaughterhouse-5

        by StarborneRanger on Thu Sep 27, 2007 at 03:26:11 PM EST

        [ Parent ]

Comments Disabled | 16 comments