- Joined
- Dec 28, 2011
- Messages
- 6,905
- Reaction score
- 233
It's not bad. There's a tendency among spoiled nerds to automatically declare x either the greatest or worst thing ever, and Halo 4 is neither. It's a bit too timid, as I said, in evolving the franchise, but all things considered, it has a better story and set-up than the first three games. The campaign has its issues. There are no big setpiece moments, and the resolution doesn't work very well and sets up unearned pathos since we all know:
but multiplayer is still competent, as you'd expect from the Halo franchise, and the production values are top-notch.
For the average gamer, I wouldn't say it's a must-buy, but it's certainly a discounted buy or rental. If you're a Halo fan, or someone who enjoys Sci-Fi, it creeps closer to that label.
One final note, as I said, I don't believe in giving normalized scores, not only because it elides a whole mess of statistical problems (will we use the mode or the median, will we weigh our distribution, etc.), but because it also sort of condenses what should be thoughtful and informative writing on something into a single number.
So yes, it has gotten a good score on Metacritic (87, by the by, and not in the high 90s), but there are questions that that score doesn't answer like:
- Compared to what?
- What issues does the game still have?
- What is its ultimate value?
And so forth. If I had to condense my thoughts on the game into a blurb, which I think is not optimal, but better than relying on scores, I'd say this.
As for your question, BN. I'd say no. Halo has a pretty dense mythos, and Halo 4 makes matters a bit worse by leaving a lot of the basic backstory about its own narrative to the expanded material or to terminals in the game. It's very fanservice-y in that regard. So I'd suggest playing some of the other ones. If you don't have the time, just play Combat Evolved and Halo 2. Those are the ones who set up the most interesting stuff story-wise. Reach is mostly pointless. Halo 3 is the payoff, and whilst it does set up some stuff for Halo 4, you'll be fine if you just watch the final cutscene on YouTube. Oh and ODST is a nice atmospheric diversion, but adds nothing to the 'main' story.
That Cortana is in the Composer and will come back at some point, and that the Didact isn't dead.
but multiplayer is still competent, as you'd expect from the Halo franchise, and the production values are top-notch.
For the average gamer, I wouldn't say it's a must-buy, but it's certainly a discounted buy or rental. If you're a Halo fan, or someone who enjoys Sci-Fi, it creeps closer to that label.
One final note, as I said, I don't believe in giving normalized scores, not only because it elides a whole mess of statistical problems (will we use the mode or the median, will we weigh our distribution, etc.), but because it also sort of condenses what should be thoughtful and informative writing on something into a single number.
So yes, it has gotten a good score on Metacritic (87, by the by, and not in the high 90s), but there are questions that that score doesn't answer like:
- Compared to what?
- What issues does the game still have?
- What is its ultimate value?
And so forth. If I had to condense my thoughts on the game into a blurb, which I think is not optimal, but better than relying on scores, I'd say this.
As for your question, BN. I'd say no. Halo has a pretty dense mythos, and Halo 4 makes matters a bit worse by leaving a lot of the basic backstory about its own narrative to the expanded material or to terminals in the game. It's very fanservice-y in that regard. So I'd suggest playing some of the other ones. If you don't have the time, just play Combat Evolved and Halo 2. Those are the ones who set up the most interesting stuff story-wise. Reach is mostly pointless. Halo 3 is the payoff, and whilst it does set up some stuff for Halo 4, you'll be fine if you just watch the final cutscene on YouTube. Oh and ODST is a nice atmospheric diversion, but adds nothing to the 'main' story.
