Haha well you know what they say.. Can't spell ignorant without IGN. They based the vast majority of that article on the multiplayer aspect saying how the "authentic multiplayer feel" wasn't there. Well NO KIDDING. 343 stated numerous times that they were
NOT recreating the multiplayer because it just couldn't be done correctly with the amount of time and resources they had.
The graphics don't live up to modern shooters? Maybe that should be attributed to the fact that it's literally just a graphics layer running on top of the old engine. They can only do so much when they aren't recreating everything from scratch in order to preserve the original feel of the game.
"The campaign is pretty short, but the inclusion of online co-op gives you more reason to go back to it. The multiplayer is a blast, but will feel familiar to those who've played Reach exhaustively."
Yeah, that about sums up the stupidity of the reviewer. The campaign isn't any shorter than it was 10 years ago. The multiplayer
IS Reach, so of course it's going to be familiar to those who play Reach. It isn't any different!
Ugh! I don't think this should have even been officially reviewed. It's not some new sensational hit. It's a remake of the game that started it all. This guy clearly had no respect for the franchise, and I'd take his review with a grain of salt.
(On a related note, IGN just gave Assassin's Creed Revelations an 8.5 even though they only pointed out one bad aspect of the game. Not that 8.5 is bad, but from what I've seen and heard, it deserves at least a 9. I think this about seals the deal for me. I'm never taking IGN's reviews seriously again. It seems that they base their scores solely off of popularity and anticipation for the game. Not to mention, if a game is a multiplayer monster, they'll give it a better score solely because of that.)