@ Kane04 _____ a weak rebuttal symbolizes a weak argument.(as if Bungie paying off GS wasn't a bad enough conspiracy theory/argument to start) glad we could settle that. I think you have better things to do than to downplay a game out of disdain.
@AngelCage-2 _____ past Reach's surface in this simple picture presentation, it does do more. better enemy AI, more open-world, more enemies on-screen, more vehicles on-screen, co-op support. and just like Halo 3 it's running video recording software in the background, which I'm pretty sure eats up on system resources. or more particularly, frame-rate. it's better to play it, and I think this no-change idea is exaggerated. you'd have to play Halo 3 and then Halo Reach to see the jump it's made. not looking at this picture, before/after.
@Kane04 ____ what game did they lie to us about? well exceeds my expectations, and it went further than any console shooter has. content, more than competent MP, story, good graphics. all rolled into one. beats having a game with graphics, a laughable story and stripped-down on features/content. the quality is justified, like it or not. it can be represented in the devoted fan base, the staying power it's online component has, and the figures gathered from Bungie.net about the campaign. that's without saying Reach is more original than what console shooters have been providing of late. if Halo hasn't done anything original on consoles, then no game deserves higher critical praise, unless you'd like to submit to a double-standard.
MOBS ____ maybe because Gamespot isn't a uniform body thinking and working as one person. Gamespot is made up of individuals. you can't fault Mr. McShea for anything.
lol @ Halo hate. love to go back in time and see what games like Killzone, COD and the like would be without it. oh...there'd most likely be.... nothingness. maybe COD, but it was a response to Medal of Honor, the classic Activision vs. EA.
HavocV3's comments