He critisizes the MP because it copies COD, not because the COD elements are bad:
He doesn't call for the game to be like COD either.
He doesn't call for the game to be like COD either.
Halo 4: Review Thread
- Thread starter Vire
- Start date
MaximumFlipFlop
Banned
You mean EGM not IGN, right Ghal?
Rickenslacker
Banned
Well it's all cyclical really. Loads of people who only enjoy '90s era PC FPS hated Halo's effect on the genre after its introduction.
Yeah. Late night posting got my acronyms scrambled. Fixed.
Why?
MaximumFlipFlop
Banned
IMO a 1/5 rating suggests a deficiency across multiple facets, not just severe deficiencies in one aspect. And technical aspects would be one of the bigger weighted ones.
Unless the game literally has no redeeming qualities except some upstanding technical achievements. Which is rarely the case because often a lot of this stuff goes together with art, graphics, audio design, etc.
Because that's what every normal website running a 1-5 or 1-10 scale does. A 1/5 always means that the product simply doesn't work--the entire product is terrible. If it has something good about it, it's a 2/10.
Granted, if you're not grading on a school grading system (90s = A, 80s = B, 70s = C, and C is, of course, average), a 5/10 means average, but when it comes to gaming, a 20% or a 55% is still well below the average.
Personally, I think having a ten-point scale is excessively large. Most people who review media (or even things like restaurants and hotels) use a 4- or 5-point scale. A ten-point scale is best for, honestly, approaching things like a grading system--assigning a number value closest to the percentage of things done correctly.
I definitely disagree but I don't think explaining any further is really going to get me any ground. I know where the reviewer is coming from and I think I understand their mindset, but I also understand a lot of people want the game to keep its same gameplay, as they feel it's integral to the series.
I'm not saying I even agree with him, but all I'll say one last time is that I'm not offended by him saying that he feels like Halo's gameplay is dated. I guess it would have been better done as an editorial piece, but then if every gaming website needs to have someone that "understands the game" then you're just going to get meaningless 9's and 10's across the board. I'd rather hear the guy's complaints then just have EGM give the people what they want, which is just a high score and review that just praises the game nonstop and gives some minor faults just so they can say the game isn't perfect. I mean, not everyone is completely familiar with the series, so maybe it would be interesting to see the views of it from someone that doesn't know it in and out. None of us were familiar with the game when the game came out in 2001.
Some of the reviews that were not posted.
Mainlinemedianews - 4/5
Gamingunion - 9/10
TechDeville - 4.5/5
PC Authority - 6/6
Mature-Gaming - 4.5/5
Spillkritikk - 8/10
Game Pandemic - 9/10
CinemaBlend - 4/5
gamrReview - 9.4/10
Eurogamer Sweden - 9/10
Gaming Examiner - 10/10
This Is Xbox - 10/10
Vandal Online - 9.4/10
Stevivor - 10/10
Digital Trends - 8.5/10
Dallas News - Comfortably familiar, refreshingly new
GamerFuzion - 9/10
Impact - 8/10
Gaming Nexus - 8.5/10
Pocket-Lint - 4.5/5
Bit-tech - 80/100
PC World Magazine - 4.5/5
Canoe - 4/5
Nukezilla - 4/5
Today Online - 4/5
Gizmag - 9/10
XBW - 94/100
Financial Post - 9.5/10
Daily Mail - 5/5
Atomic MPC - 93/100
Wired - 9/10
GamesTM - 9/10
Globe and Mail - 9/10
Mirror - 5/5
Thunderbolt - 8/10
NZ Herald - 5/5
The Inquirer - 9/10
DualShockers - 10/10
Eurogamer Spain - 9/10
RegHardware - 85/100
PC World - 4.5/5
Yahoo - 5/5
IncGamers - 8/10
CraveOnline - 9/10
NowGamer - 8.5/10
TheHDRoom - 9.7/10
GotGame - 5/5
GameRant - 4.5/5
VideoGamer - 9/10
Daily Joypad - 4.5/5
Ready-Up - 8/10
Forbes - 8/10
Worthplaying - 8.5/10
XXLGaming - 10/10
Electronic Theatre - 9.3/10
OXM UK - 9/10
Dealspwn - 9/10
GamingTrend - 96/100
GamesRadar - 4.5/5
Xboxer360 - 93/100
GamesBeat - 9/10
Complex - 9/10
AusGamers - 9.1/10
Digital Spy - 4/5
NGB - 9/10
Mainlinemedianews - 4/5
Gamingunion - 9/10
TechDeville - 4.5/5
PC Authority - 6/6
Mature-Gaming - 4.5/5
Spillkritikk - 8/10
Game Pandemic - 9/10
CinemaBlend - 4/5
gamrReview - 9.4/10
Eurogamer Sweden - 9/10
Gaming Examiner - 10/10
This Is Xbox - 10/10
Vandal Online - 9.4/10
Stevivor - 10/10
Digital Trends - 8.5/10
Dallas News - Comfortably familiar, refreshingly new
GamerFuzion - 9/10
Impact - 8/10
Gaming Nexus - 8.5/10
Pocket-Lint - 4.5/5
Bit-tech - 80/100
PC World Magazine - 4.5/5
Canoe - 4/5
Nukezilla - 4/5
Today Online - 4/5
Gizmag - 9/10
XBW - 94/100
Financial Post - 9.5/10
Daily Mail - 5/5
Atomic MPC - 93/100
Wired - 9/10
GamesTM - 9/10
Globe and Mail - 9/10
Mirror - 5/5
Thunderbolt - 8/10
NZ Herald - 5/5
The Inquirer - 9/10
DualShockers - 10/10
Eurogamer Spain - 9/10
RegHardware - 85/100
PC World - 4.5/5
Yahoo - 5/5
IncGamers - 8/10
CraveOnline - 9/10
NowGamer - 8.5/10
TheHDRoom - 9.7/10
GotGame - 5/5
GameRant - 4.5/5
VideoGamer - 9/10
Daily Joypad - 4.5/5
Ready-Up - 8/10
Forbes - 8/10
Worthplaying - 8.5/10
XXLGaming - 10/10
Electronic Theatre - 9.3/10
OXM UK - 9/10
Dealspwn - 9/10
GamingTrend - 96/100
GamesRadar - 4.5/5
Xboxer360 - 93/100
GamesBeat - 9/10
Complex - 9/10
AusGamers - 9.1/10
Digital Spy - 4/5
NGB - 9/10
I dont like Halo at all but you guys are giving too much importance to all these scores. Its going to play like Halo - If you liked it before then yeah its going to be a good game for you.
I'm fairly sure it's sarcasm.
People should celebrate dissenting voices in reviews. I think someone who isn't a fan of Halo should be allowed to review a Halo game and honestly give air their criticisms. I think someone who prefers Call of Duty should be allowed to review a Halo game and review it from that perspective.
Shit, I think someone who has never played a video game in their life should be allowed to review Halo 4. We need different voices, not a massive echo chamber where folks who think differently are shouted down by folks wielding pitchforks.
Shit, I think someone who has never played a video game in their life should be allowed to review Halo 4. We need different voices, not a massive echo chamber where folks who think differently are shouted down by folks wielding pitchforks.
I'm curious, which part did you disagree with? The point I was making, echoing the post I linked, was that the reviewer did not back up his critique at all. Just made a blanket statement. Which I figured was a non-controversial thing to observe, since that's what he did. We shouldn't have to infer an understanding of where he's coming from.
The suggestions the EGM reviewer made where borderline nothing like a Halo game, it made it sound like every other loud game on the market. Nobody is disputing that the game should not evolve, but take away the soul of it, such as large scale levels, more dynamic sandbox and enemy AI, then it isnt Halo anymore. The game is called Halo, it is built on those fundamentals that make it great. Built on top of it, but not digress it into linear levels, QTE set piece moments and unnecessary additions just to follow current market trends.
I bet the same thing will happen for any game in its 4th iteration. Just wait for God of War Ascension reviews to hit - It plays too much like GOW. UC4 will also face some heat if it sticks to the same formula the next time around. It is bound to happen. Those who want a similar experience will not be complaining at all though. All reviewers need not have a hive mind. Having said that a 20 for such a game is really incorrect IMO. 20 implies the game is broken.
Slight correction, this is not the 4th iteration for the franchise
Oh yeah sorry. Did not mean that. I just went along with the number. I just meant multiple games within the franchise without a significant change between them can lead to franchise fatigue for some.
And add the fact that some reviewers seem to intentionally give extremely bad scores for page hits.
This is why I stick to user reviews. Much better and useful. As you say I'm sure GOW:A will get a meta below 9...but I'm sure I will love it regardless
I disagree that he needs to explain why he feels like iron-sights is a better way of controlling a FPS. He is clearly expressing in the review that he feels the Halo series feels like it's dated compared to more modern FPS's, and the iron sights is a small bullet point among other things. Not to mention people focus on the iron sights thing because that's what stands out the most, but he also says that the level design and other facets of the game feel dated and that's harder to defend because they're considered valid criticisms and since the game isn't out yet, mostly nobody can argue against that yet.
I feel like people are running away with this iron sights thing because it's the easiest thing to ""get angry"" about, and it grabs other people's attention and thus get more posts skewed to agree.
I have no problem with dissenting voices; I do have problems with stupid ones. Arguing that Halo should introduce ADS (why? because it's comfortable? ADS fundamentally slows down the gameplay and necessitates more corridor-like level design; Halo is all about being a super-mobile soldier! The fun of Halo is found in moving around the maps--ADS is antithetical to movement) is a stupid argument, just like the reviewers who argued that Saint's Row: The Third should have had a cover system.]
This makes the mistake of assuming that a new mechanic is an improvement on an old one. ADS is totally appropriate for certain games, and wholly inappropriate for others. It's not a case of "is this modern or not?" It's all about whether or not the mechanic is appropriate for the purpose it's being implemented for. By "more modern," he's arguing for homogenization (since nearly all modern shooters feel homogenous, despite minor variations like Bulletstorm), which is quite stupid. Halo is different, not out of date.
There is no basis for this statement. Borderlands 2 has ADS and is far from corridor like.
This part of the review:
I don't know how anybody can defend a gameplay driven game to become a big-ticket sequence blockbuster, with less focus on combat and smaller environments. In this age where gameplay based centric games are taking more and more control away from the player, I just can't see why anybody would take his suggestions serious. This is a general problem with games this generation, take away so much freedom just to make some cheap thrills and offer no challenging gameplay.
Watching this video before posting in this thread should be required:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
You are welcome.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
You are welcome.
I should have worded that better. Part of the reason that Borderlands 2 doesn't have very good combat (aside from the game's lack of feedback) is that it plays too slowly--a result of the ADS stuff.
It works great when you're fighting your way down a hall in, say, Call of Duty 4, because the game creates a real sense of tension. Borderlands 2 just feels sluggish as a result of ADS.
The point of that movie was that he was a pathetic loser and that no one should ever go to him for advice.
I just think it's embarrassing that the guy is harangued like this, is "called out" on here, has to defend his review and opinions, and then is essentially "scared off" by mass-mentality and name-calling.
I get that iron sights isn't necessarily improvement to me or you when it comes to Halo games, but the reviewer felt like it would have been. I'll also say another time that he only mentions iron-sights one time in the review, also noting several other things he felt were wrong with the game, including the level design.
I also understand that if you change a lot of these parts, it may not be Halo to you anymore, but at what point is that still acceptable? I mean, I don't get voice acting in Zelda, I still want it, but I'm sure I'd hear just as many people tell me that it's "just not Zelda." I think large environments are great only if they serve a purpose and are done well, but clearly others don't feel the same way. We all have different views and opinions on stuff, all I'm saying is that you just act a little more human and respectable when critiquing the guy because he feels very differently about a series than you do. There's no reason to try and turn this into a mud-flinging contest when you can say the same thing, but come off as intelligent instead of arrogant and intentionally hurtful.
I get that iron sights isn't necessarily improvement to me or you when it comes to Halo games, but the reviewer felt like it would have been. I'll also say another time that he only mentions iron-sights one time in the review, also noting several other things he felt were wrong with the game, including the level design.
I also understand that if you change a lot of these parts, it may not be Halo to you anymore, but at what point is that still acceptable? I mean, I don't get voice acting in Zelda, I still want it, but I'm sure I'd hear just as many people tell me that it's "just not Zelda." I think large environments are great only if they serve a purpose and are done well, but clearly others don't feel the same way. We all have different views and opinions on stuff, all I'm saying is that you just act a little more human and respectable when critiquing the guy because he feels very differently about a series than you do. There's no reason to try and turn this into a mud-flinging contest when you can say the same thing, but come off as intelligent instead of arrogant and intentionally hurtful.
Deputy Moonman
Member
I have no problem with what he's saying nor care about his opinion. But 1/5 is the worst grade you can give a game, and his review doesn't justify the score. Apparently he gives a lot of games bad scores. Whatever, bully for him. But he's using a whacked out scale that doesn't match up with standards that we've come to expect. So he should fully expect a backlash for giving a good game the worst score possible just because it's not what he wants. That's just asinine.
Wrong guy. I'm talking about the EGM reviewer.
Yes and his suggestion for "better level design" was basically "it should be a scripted corridor shooter", and the fact that it isn't means its dated.
hmm.. I dont agree though. I thought Borderlands 2 shooting was satisfying. Also I dont think ADS is better for corridor shooters. No better example than CS where there are plenty of corridor combat which works brilliantly with hip fire. Planetside works perfectly well using ADS and is open. There is no point pigeon holing these mechanics into a particular type of game. Both work well as long as the game is designed well around those core mechanics.
Deputy Moonman
Member
oops. i'm sorry. carry on, lol.
There is no problem criticizing that review but there were a few people calling him a retard. Really? Over a videogame review?
Yeah, that was really unwarrented. Take away the dumb comments, the real debate was cival.
Actually, a 1/5 and a 5.5/10 mean one part out of five and five-and-a-half parts out of ten, respectively. Any meaning beyond that would be in the text of the review.
I don't think I could possibly care less about review scores. They're numbers almost completely devoid of meaning, and they don't (or shouldn't) affect anything.
Canis lupus
Member
2/10 is the same guy who also scored UC3 a low score right?
Yeah.He does this with most blockbuster games.I've heard people say he's the Arnold White of video game reviewing but i actually thinks he dislike them.
Palette Swap
Member
I read Tom Chick's review and while I'll probably end up disagreeing a lot with it, it's mostly fine. The only thing that really annoyed me there is the spoilers. I should have read that after playing the game.
As for the score, it's just how he usually scores. I've said it before but I really don't think he scores like that just for shock value or to be a contrarian. He just does it like he feels it, in regard to his overall experience and expectations.
The biggest issue with his scoring policy is aggregators. Aggregators tend to enforce the status quo of the 7-10 scale, if only because any dissenting score will stand out. I fully believe there should be dissenting opinions, there should be different scoring policies and the debate should always be about singular opinions, particular points. If anything, I totally agree with people bringing up how some statements in the EGM review were bullshit and I don't give a flying fuck whether Chick's score is a 1/5 or a 7/10.
As for the score, it's just how he usually scores. I've said it before but I really don't think he scores like that just for shock value or to be a contrarian. He just does it like he feels it, in regard to his overall experience and expectations.
The biggest issue with his scoring policy is aggregators. Aggregators tend to enforce the status quo of the 7-10 scale, if only because any dissenting score will stand out. I fully believe there should be dissenting opinions, there should be different scoring policies and the debate should always be about singular opinions, particular points. If anything, I totally agree with people bringing up how some statements in the EGM review were bullshit and I don't give a flying fuck whether Chick's score is a 1/5 or a 7/10.
Same here. I can make some guesses, but nothing in there seems all that major to me.
Maybe I just don't care enough.
MrCookiepants
Member
Because a 1/5 is the lowest score possible? It should be reserved for the absolute worst games.
According to Tom Chick, The Darkness 2 is 5 times better than Halo 4. He's clearly out of touch and incapable of giving an objective critique.
Remember, this is GAF. Someone in the Diablo 3 thread got dogpiled then banned for posting a picture of Diablo shortly after release. I think someone did mention what the "spoiler" was earlier but it was so ridiculous I couldn't tell if they were trolling.
1. There is no universal grading scale when it comes to video game reviews.
2. There are no objective reviews.
They are allowed to do that. It just doesn't result in a helpful review.
Halo and CoD belong to different sub catagories of FPS. Describing the differences for people is helpful. Dismissing one for not being the other is less helpful. Review a game on its intent and whether or not it's fun to play.
I can't believe people seriously make comments like this. That's not how review scores work.
Review scores don't work. 1/5 for a big budget title like this with obvious quality is a bit on the silly side though.
Reading the Quarter to Three and GameArena reviews just now. Very harsh reviews. Ignoring the scores, it's understandable that they were both bored of Halo and wanted something new, and this game didn't bring enough 'new' to the table for them. Fair enough. Considering the scores, yikes. A 5 out of 10, and especially a 2 out of 10 means to me a deeply flawed, broken game. Since I'm pretty sure at least both of those things are not true, the scores are "LOL we shitcanned Halo 4, give us hits".
Kydd BlaZe
Member
Kind of off topic a bit, but I find it pretty funny that Tom Chick's abhorrent Uncharted 3 review wasn't even posted on Metacritic, but it happens to rear it's ugly head here for Halo 4.