Halo 4: Review Thread

Demoncarnotaur said:
So, this is down to an 89 on metacritic.

mOHoB.png
Click to expand...

This put a smile on my face.
A fairly rehashed games that hasn't evolved at all don't deserve 9+ scores.
 
Jackswastedlife said:
Moving right along, I find the assertion that CoD's guns have less depth and breadth in terms of variety and technique to be a bit ignorant. The simple fact that I don't like Fishstick's half-implemented concession vs. a more realistic sense of aiming doesn't mean that the 20+ guns in Call of Duty suddenly offer less functional variety than Halo's dozen or so options - many of which are intentional mirrors across factions (UNSC, Covenant, Forerunner). I'm 210% certain this isn't a matter of subjectivity, and if you ever want to go to bat on this one, I'm happy to dance.

What's more, the argument that a lack of movement restriction assures or aids balance is a equally iffy. As I'm sure you're aware, the weapons in most contemporary shooters offer several points of variation from a tuning standpoint, including stability, rate of fire, recoil, damage, payload, effective range, zoom levels, weight, and reload speed.
Click to expand...

I don't want to harp on COD too much but it's ADS mechanic is about as realistic as Halo's shooting, and there IS less breath in functional variety in COD's weapons, the different playsyles allowed by Halos weapons prove that. which is also where the movement speed and health is a key factor. Melee wouldn't be nearly as important with lower health - wich would dimish Halo's variety in playstyles.

COD relys on an elaborate perk system/Kill streaks to bring in variation, not variety in weapon functionality.

Call of Duty is the wrong franchise to point to for careful weapon balancing or any kind of realistic shooting behaviour of its weapons. Stability, recoil, weight and most other differentiators you mentioned don't mean much in COD.

ADS is a preference, "realism" isn't a good justification for it, as it is not handled in a realistic way in most modern shooters. There's nothing "superior" about the mechanic.
 
Jackswastedlife said:
A rather articulate response, to be certain, but I can't say that I agree with the misleading nature of your arguments. And when you imply that my opinions are an stab at an objective argument by taking them out of context - that's just a bit irresponsible of you, isn't it?

For starters, I'm firmly aware of the differences between the two franchises.

Next up is the fact that you simultaneously point out the fact that ADS mechanics aren't exclusive to Call of Duty, then call proceed to follow the lead of the internet troll brigade and assume that I have even a passing fancy for the Call of Duty series. Not the case and a biiiig assumption on your part.

I actually cited several games with ADS mechanics in my review (not just BLOPS 2) and the implication that I'm too stupid to recognize iron sights in other games is pretty weak sauce.

And as much as I'd love to congratulate you on the earth-shattering observation that Fishstick is bridge between most modern FPS titles and Halo's more...shall we say...traditional methodology, again, that notion is inherent to my entire point: the option is in there, you agree that 343i recognize some folks' preference here, and my whole point is that those who like ADS mechanics are utterly under-served in Halo 4 and that bums me out.

I also appreciate your attempt to introduce me to the basic tenants of game balance and the trade-offs involved therein, but my guess is I know a bit more than you think I do on that front.

Anyways, as a fan of the genre, I'm just not a huge fan of how Halo handles the whole movement vs. accuracy side of their mechanics. Having held and shot a gun before in my life, I'd rather see more of an impact here. Just my opinion. You're obviously entitled to disagree.

The while ADS mechanics slow down some games is a design decision and not a mandate, and further more, it's also relative depending a several things, including the average amount of damage a gun does. I think most FPS titles require way too many fucking bullets to eliminate an enemy, including both Halo and CoD. It's one of the reasons I don't play either for recreational purposes. Again, just my opinion on the subject.

Moving right along, I find the assertion that CoD's guns have less depth and breadth in terms of variety and technique to be a bit ignorant. The simple fact that I don't like Fishstick's half-implemented concession vs. a more realistic sense of aiming doesn't mean that the 20+ guns in Call of Duty suddenly offer less functional variety than Halo's dozen or so options - many of which are intentional mirrors across factions (UNSC, Covenant, Forerunner). I'm 210% certain this isn't a matter of subjectivity, and if you ever want to go to bat on this one, I'm happy to dance.

What's more, the argument that a lack of movement restriction assures or aids balance is a equally iffy. As I'm sure you're aware, the weapons in most contemporary shooters offer several points of variation from a tuning standpoint, including stability, rate of fire, recoil, damage, payload, effective range, zoom levels, weight, and reload speed.

Weapon balance is a careful combination of many factors, including (but not restricted to) those noted above, and you're not exactly putting me in my place by assuming that your average game designer is incapable of managing two with respect to a zoom mechanic. You're just getting stuck on something you feel is critical without actually thinking it through. Plenty of other games manage to get it done, so I don't buy that it's impossible, regardless of what game we're discussing.

And I never said or even implied that CoD's popularity is even remotely related to my desire to see Halo up the ante. In fact, when you consider that Halo shipped on one platform and will likely sell 10-12 million units and CoD will ship on three and do around 25-30, it's hardly a matter or might making right, nor would I ever make a case based on such frivolous ideals. That's like saying all restaurants should be McDonalds because a lot of people eat there. If that's what you're taking away, you're making some big assumptions.

At any rate, I'm not trying to make any brave steps. Just do my job, which is play a game and express my thoughts on its merits and short-comings. I also don't think that my difference of opinion is wrong any more than I do your opinions, nor would I presume to tell any of you your opinions are "invalid." They're just different.

You're welcome to disagree, but I'd appreciate if you don't imply I'm a simpleton because we like different things.
Click to expand...



You've fired a gun in real life eh? How long have you been a spartan?
 
Jackswastedlife said:
'Wall of defensive text'
Click to expand...

There are so many rediculous parts in your posts that I can quote, but I'll keep it to this:
Why, why can't you see that ADS does not make any sense whatsoever in Halo? It simply doesn't. It doesn't aid the player in any shape, way or form. You can not compare that to COD or any other military shooter because those shooters rely on ADS to increase accuracy, reduce recoil and weapon bloom. None of that will happen by introducing that in Halo. So it doesn't make sense from a gameplay perspective, but as I already mentionned in a previous post, it also doesn't make sense from a fiction/design perspective. It's impossible for a Spartan to align a logical and useful line of sight given the Spartan armor proportions.

It's just stupid to want this feature. It's like wanting Hadoukens in Tekken, it's like wanting machineguns in Gran Turismo, it's like wanting all the addition Team Ninja made to Ninja Gaiden 3, compared to Ninja Gaiden 2, that made it horrible etc.

You want a solution for a problem that doesn't exist. Plain and simple.

Alienshogun said:
You've fired a gun in real life eh? How long have you been a spartan?
Click to expand...

smiley-laughing002.gif
 
Yogsam said:
It's not because you hated Halo 4, its because...



Guys, guys! Why don't we list our top 5 systems and their DEFINITIVE game! And all you can name is PS3, PS3, PS3.

Or maybe, is because...



Yeah, I know. This doesn't mean anything! We all have consoles we love. So no, maybe is not this, but...


http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=24549376&postcount=8133

Maybe is that quote above? It could be anything, my friend.
Click to expand...
Dat research! Anywho, review scores over the years changed because of reviewer payouts. Shame because I really don't see a turnaround. It's either tens or shit now. But after reading EGM's comments on ADS, I can see why there's no variety between games. How ridiculous that games have to be so similar to receive decent scores? I mean how would ADS even work in an arena type game like Halo? Did they even entertain the thought?
 
Jackswastedlife said:
Preeeetty sure it was the slew of 8.0s that went up after my review that dragged it down. It was a 9.1 when mine got added.
Click to expand...

It's at 89.6 based on a pure average of the scores. But since Metacritic assigns a higher weight to scores from certain higher-profile publications (and I'm guessing EGM is one of them), that brings the Metacritic score down below 89.5.

But the score really isn't what matters. It's the content of the review. And your mile-long rant did nothing to justify your criticisms.
 
patapuf said:
I don't want to harp on COD too much but it's ADS mechanic is about as realistic as Halo's shooting, and there IS less breath in functional variety in COD's weapons, the different playsyles allowed by Halos weapons prove that. which is also where the movement speed and health is a key factor. Melee wouldn't be nearly as important with lower health - wich would dimish Halo's variety in playstyles.

COD relys on an elaborate perk system/Kill streaks to bring in variation, not variety in weapon functionality.

Call of Duty is the wrong franchise to point to for careful weapon balancing or any kind of realistic shooting behaviour of its weapons. Stability, recoil, weight and most other differentiators you mentioned don't mean much in COD.

ADS is a preference, "realism" isn't a good justification for it, as it is not handled in a realistic way in most modern shooters. There's nothing "superior" about the mechanic.
Click to expand...
Yeah, most weapons in COD feels so similar to each other. I just cannot believe how far gaming sunk where games can't have it's own identity.
 
Darkmakaimura said:
I agree with most of the people here and that the EGM reviewer is way off, but name calling by a guy who made one of the crappiest games this generation really does not help this argument one bit.
Click to expand...

Duke Nukem Forever Didn't have Iron Sights. That's what made it awful.
 
Ah yes. Hordes of people who haven't actually played the game yet go all-out to attack the reviewer who scored it below their hype-fueled expectations.

This thread needs a Mama Robotnik wall of shame.
 
Hoo-doo said:
Ah yes. Hordes of people who haven't actually played the game yet go all-out to attack the reviewer who scored it below their hype-fueled expectations.

This thread needs a Mama Robotnik wall of shame.
Click to expand...
They're attacking the premise that Halo needs ADS, smaller environments, and more scripted events.
 
Hoo-doo said:
Ah yes. Hordes of people who haven't actually played the game yet go all-out to attack the reviewer who scored it below their hype-fueled expectations.

This thread needs a Mama Robotnik wall of shame.
Click to expand...

Many of us, including I, own the game.

I've played through the campaign multiple times and I think it's the best one since the first Halo.
 
Hoo-doo said:
Ah yes. Hordes of people who haven't actually played the game yet go all-out to attack the reviewer who scored it below their hype-fueled expectations.

This thread needs a Mama Robotnik wall of shame.
Click to expand...

Yes, because it's totally the score and not the nonsense that was written, supporting that score.
 
To be honest , I wish they'd of home to whole hog of modernising Halo but adding prone.

Also by making it f2p
 
Jackswastedlife said:
*giant post*
Click to expand...

Here's what I think is going on. If you're the one who originally wrote the EGM review, here's what people are having a problem with:

These low points are openly exacerbated by the series’ staunch refusal to get with the times when it comes to game mechanics and level design, ignoring obvious enhancements like big-ticket sequences and proper iron-sights mechanics in favor of their age-old addiction to slow, methodical combat in unnecessarily large environments.
Click to expand...

This sentence demonstrates a lack of understanding on your part as to what makes Halo Halo. It's okay not to understand certain games. I certainly don't understand Metal Gear. It's sloppy, however, to state that a game should cater to certain trends in videogames today when those trends run counter to its core philosophy. Halo is a sandbox game first and foremost, so having "big-ticket sequences" (to point out one example), which inevitably involve removing control from the player, is improper for a Halo game. Halo should always strive to give the player more freedom and off her more choices to tackle encounters in anyway she sees fit.

You may not like Halo because it doesn't have what you want it to have and thus doesn't appeal to your tastes. That's fine, but you should acknowledge that what you want doesn't belong in a Halo game.
 
Hoo-doo said:
Ah yes. Hordes of people who haven't actually played the game yet go all-out to attack the reviewer who scored it below their hype-fueled expectations.

This thread needs a Mama Robotnik wall of shame.
Click to expand...
He's asking for a mechanic that wouldn't work and/or make sense in a Halo game, specifically in this game. Criticisms here are pretty justified.
 
Hoo-doo said:
Ah yes. Hordes of people who haven't actually played the game yet go all-out to attack the reviewer who scored it below their hype-fueled expectations.

This thread needs a Mama Robotnik wall of shame.
Click to expand...

Only if there's a wall of shame for those who post in the thread without reading it.
 
I've driven a car before. I give F-Zero GX a 7/10 because it doesn't have a manual transmission option, which is standard in modern racing games. Also it plays just like the original F-Zero. Nintendo playing it safe.
 
I'm frankly shocked that a professional game reviewer actually thinks Call of Duty is taking shooter campaigns in the right direction. It's pretty much the embodiment of everything that's wrong in that department.
 
GavinGT said:
I'm frankly shocked that a professional game reviewer actually thinks Call of Duty is taking shooter campaigns in the right direction. It's pretty much the embodiment of everything that's wrong in that department.
Click to expand...
I don't see how COD embodies everything wrong with first person shooters. It's the Call of Duty clones that take that honor, in my opinion.
 
Dax01 said:
You may not Halo because it doesn't have what you want it to have, and that's fine, but you should acknowledge that what you want isn't Halo.
Click to expand...

I've always found Golf to be pretty tedious , I believe that the inclusion of Frisbees, Skateboards and wing suits would bring this old sport into the 21st century.
 
EvB said:
I've always found Golf to be pretty tedious , I believe that the inclusion of Frisbees, Skateboards and wing suits would bring this old sport into the 21st century.
Click to expand...
Don't forget that the green is too large. Needs to be more linear. Also, the sand pits need to explode if the ball lands in them.
 
Kenak said:
I don't see how COD embodies everything wrong with first person shooters. It's the Call of Duty clones that take that honor, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about single player, specifically. They're insultingly linear and scripted. They're the videogame equivalent of Disney Land's "It's a Small World" ride.
 
Jackswastedlife said:
A rather articulate response, to be certain, but I can't say that I agree with the misleading nature of your arguments. And when you imply that my opinions are an stab at an objective argument by taking them out of context - that's just a bit irresponsible of you, isn't it?

For starters, I'm firmly aware of the differences between the two franchises.

Next up is the fact that you simultaneously point out the fact that ADS mechanics aren't exclusive to Call of Duty, then call proceed to follow the lead of the internet troll brigade and assume that I have even a passing fancy for the Call of Duty series. Not the case and a biiiig assumption on your part.

I actually cited several games with ADS mechanics in my review (not just BLOPS 2) and the implication that I'm too stupid to recognize iron sights in other games is pretty weak sauce.

And as much as I'd love to congratulate you on the earth-shattering observation that Fishstick is bridge between most modern FPS titles and Halo's more...shall we say...traditional methodology, again, that notion is inherent to my entire point: the option is in there, you agree that 343i recognize some folks' preference here, and my whole point is that those who like ADS mechanics are utterly under-served in Halo 4 and that bums me out.

I also appreciate your attempt to introduce me to the basic tenants of game balance and the trade-offs involved therein, but my guess is I know a bit more than you think I do on that front.

Anyways, as a fan of the genre, I'm just not a huge fan of how Halo handles the whole movement vs. accuracy side of their mechanics. Having held and shot a gun before in my life, I'd rather see more of an impact here. Just my opinion. You're obviously entitled to disagree.

The while ADS mechanics slow down some games is a design decision and not a mandate, and further more, it's also relative depending a several things, including the average amount of damage a gun does. I think most FPS titles require way too many fucking bullets to eliminate an enemy, including both Halo and CoD. It's one of the reasons I don't play either for recreational purposes. Again, just my opinion on the subject.

Moving right along, I find the assertion that CoD's guns have less depth and breadth in terms of variety and technique to be a bit ignorant. The simple fact that I don't like Fishstick's half-implemented concession vs. a more realistic sense of aiming doesn't mean that the 20+ guns in Call of Duty suddenly offer less functional variety than Halo's dozen or so options - many of which are intentional mirrors across factions (UNSC, Covenant, Forerunner). I'm 210% certain this isn't a matter of subjectivity, and if you ever want to go to bat on this one, I'm happy to dance.

What's more, the argument that a lack of movement restriction assures or aids balance is a equally iffy. As I'm sure you're aware, the weapons in most contemporary shooters offer several points of variation from a tuning standpoint, including stability, rate of fire, recoil, damage, payload, effective range, zoom levels, weight, and reload speed.

Weapon balance is a careful combination of many factors, including (but not restricted to) those noted above, and you're not exactly putting me in my place by assuming that your average game designer is incapable of managing two with respect to a zoom mechanic. You're just getting stuck on something you feel is critical without actually thinking it through. Plenty of other games manage to get it done, so I don't buy that it's impossible, regardless of what game we're discussing.

And I never said or even implied that CoD's popularity is even remotely related to my desire to see Halo up the ante. In fact, when you consider that Halo shipped on one platform and will likely sell 10-12 million units and CoD will ship on three and do around 25-30, it's hardly a matter or might making right, nor would I ever make a case based on such frivolous ideals. That's like saying all restaurants should be McDonalds because a lot of people eat there. If that's what you're taking away, you're making some big assumptions.

At any rate, I'm not trying to make any brave steps. Just do my job, which is play a game and express my thoughts on its merits and short-comings. I also don't think that my difference of opinion is wrong any more than I do your opinions, nor would I presume to tell any of you your opinions are "invalid." They're just different.

You're welcome to disagree, but I'd appreciate if you don't imply I'm a simpleton because we like different things.
Click to expand...

me_04.jpg


You really can't let it go can you?

There's a reason why your review has stirred up so much shit and it's sure as heck isn't your trollbait 70% score.

Just look at what you actually said in your review.

I was left with a frustratingly similar Halo experience that other top-tier shooters have long since blasted into the oblivion of dog-tired gaming conventions.
Click to expand...

You start off by saying other "top-tier" FPS games have "blasted away" Halo's "dog-tired gaming conventions".

This isn't fact. Look at the at how well Halo games have already sold this generation alone. Look at the metacritic scores to get an idea of what other critics are saying and look at the Live activity charts for what people are actually playing.

The simple fact here, that you seem to blindly ignore, is that people are not tired of Halo. That goes for both critics and players and there's only one real FPS series that has topped Halo for the attention of FPS fans and that is COD. And like you yourself have said here on GAF, popularity doesn't mean shit - it has no value relative to a game's quality.

Your opening statement is just a bunch of subjective bullcrap you made up. Why not just be honest and say you personally just don't like Halo any more. Be honest. Other games have not blown away Halo. Players still love it. Critics do too.

rinse-repeat relay of pumping way too many bullets into the same half-dozen enemies over and over
Click to expand...

Be honest here, again. Is this really your attempt at criticising a video game? And you call yourself professional?

You could easily stick that comment into a "review" of any FPS that's ever been created. And if this is the kind of insight you offer to readers of your work, then I really don't understand why anyone would employ you to write anything.

ignoring obvious enhancements like big-ticket sequences and proper iron-sights mechanics
Click to expand...

You are literally criticising Halo for not having ADS here, you obviously have a bias for a fucking game mechanic and are criticising a game because they don't include it. The funny thing is here is you don't even understand why your arong, if your defensive posts here are anything to go by. And "big-ticket sequences" what does that even mean?

I just won’t be blown away until his handlers find the guts to finally break the mold.
Click to expand...

Find the guts? In your professional review of the game you are implying a game developer is cowardly because they don't include things like ADS and "big-ticket sequences".

All you had to say you didn't enjoy the game, it didn't do anything new or it didn't bring anything substantially new to the table. But no. You whinge about ADS. You complain about having to kill enemies over and over again in a FPS game. You imply the developers are cowardly.

Your review of the game is joke and I get the impression you aren't qualified to be paid to write about anything, never mind video games, no matter how many guns you've fired in real life.
 
Yeah seriously, no one gives a fuck about the actual score. He explicitly said Halo needs to "get with the times" by throwing in cliched nonsense that is a staple of the modern shooter genre. No fanboyism, no "omg he didn't give it a 11/10, get the pitchforks". The review was terrible, no way around it. If you don't like Halo, that's fine, just don't explain how Halo needs to add features that would, by definition, make it not Halo.
Alienshogun said:
There's only one thing in this thread that should be fired, and it's not a gun.

Journalism am cry.
Click to expand...

I want to be a games journalist. :(

Shit like this makes me not want to be. A lot of dumb stuff in this industry that I couldn't fix.
 
monsterfracas said:
Yeah seriously, no one gives a fuck about the actual score. He explicitly said Halo needs to "get with the times" by throwing in cliched nonsense that is a staple of the modern shooter genre. No fanboyism, no "omg he didn't give it a 11/10, get the pitchforks". The review was terrible, no way around it. If you don't like Halo, that's fine, just don't explain how Halo needs to add features that would, by definition, make it not Halo./QUOTE]

The sad part is that he doesn't seem to understand what the issue is here. Therefor I don't know how any of his reviews can be taken seriously in the future.
Click to expand...
 
Hoo-doo said:
Ah yes. Hordes of people who haven't actually played the game yet go all-out to attack the reviewer who scored it below their hype-fueled expectations.

This thread needs a Mama Robotnik wall of shame.
Click to expand...

And another fool comes into a thread in which people aren't whining about scores and acts like people are whining about scores.

FStop7 said:
People getting really bent out of shape over one single review.
Click to expand...

Nah, people have an issue with some dolt that thinks the way to improve Halo is for it to become CoD. That's just stupid.
 
The review is bad, but I don't think there's really anymore that needs to be said about it, and there's definitely no need to post a picture of the dude.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Dune: Awakening - Review Thread
Analysis Review  2
63
123
dorkimoe replied
Mario Kart World Review thread
Business Analysis Review  2
85
603
Dr. Wilkinson replied
Revenge of the Savage Planet | Review Thread
Review 
16
474
Aguero9320 replied
  • Poll
Doom: The Dark Ages | Review Thread
Analysis Review  7 8 9 10 11
533
3K
Super Lemon Drop replied
Lunar Remastered Collection | Review Thread
Opinion Review 
43
3K
anthony2690 replied
Top Bottom