Rickenslacker
Banned
Thank you bungle I can finally aim now.
Halo 4: Review Thread
- Thread starter Vire
- Start date
Neuromancer
Member
I think the author may have kept it alive by defending it here, and everyone looks at the lowest scoring review.
That series of incredibly naff suggestions provoked the initial hilarity/ridicule.
Look, another person who has no idea what a review is.
Edit: To be clear preference for some designs and mechanics is not "bias" it's the heart of a review.
lol oh my goodness...
Hahahaha perfect
They want to use their own campaign footage, which Microsoft said is not allowed until midnight Tuesday morning.
Gotcha, thanks.
Also I think you guys have successfully scared off the EGM reviewer.
RealDeadOne
Member
I mean that the reviewer has a preexisting bias against the series.
Obviously there's nothing wrong with preferring one design over another, however the reviewer is criticizing the game not for having poor design, but for not having his favorite design. He's not judging the game as a Halo game, he's judging it as a Call of Duty game.
I'm not talking about bias as in prior and current opinions affecting a score, which is obviously unavoidable, I'm saying that it's a biased and worthless opinion to criticize Super Mario Galaxy just for not being a 2D Mario game.
I fail to see how cherry picking certain aspects of a game while writing off/ignoring others constitutes a lack of an evolution. Then again, you think every positive review for the game is a payed advertisement, while every negative one is a "real" review.
Glancing at your post history, you seem to enjoy Call of Duty. How has COD "evolved" over the course of the last few titles, since Call of Duty 4?
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
Become a video game reviewer?
Neuromancer
Member
I understand and the guy is welcome to his opinion, but that doesn't mean we can't poke a bit of fun at the reasoning he's employing. In fact it was a very helpful review for me, because it sounds like 343i is staying true to the spirit of the series.
Unhandled Exception
Member
Didn't expect the shit I said to Broussard to blow up to this level, but I just wish people understood that I wasn't defending the EGM review. I think it's an objectively bad review. I just couldn't let what George was saying slide. Feel a little bad that it was exposed to this degree, but thats the risk you take when you're a guy like George saying shit like he said.
All that aside, I'm not even a Halo fan but I'm seriously excited to check out 4. Seems like they're doing a lot of new things that seem right.
All that aside, I'm not even a Halo fan but I'm seriously excited to check out 4. Seems like they're doing a lot of new things that seem right.
See You Next Wednesday
Banned
I'm still on the fence on buying Halo 4 or not. I do like the additions & changes they made.
I also fucking hate current CoD post IW breakup.
MW1 & 2 were great & I liked WaW for what it was. Speaking of which, MW2 added & changed more over MW1 than the Halo games did in over 4 games.
Are you on drugs?
Garrett 2U
Member
Lmfao, well done!
Modern Warfare -> Modern Warfare 2: Spec Ops. Custom kill streaks. Death streaks. Pro perks. Host migration. Player card titles.
Halo 3 -> Halo Reach: Firefight. Invasion. Loadouts. Armor Abilities. Forge 2.0 + Forge World. Active Roster. Headhunter.
Derp, herp herp, derp herp, herp derp.
scar tissue
Banned
.
I've played most relevant shooters on consoles in the last 5 years, and the two scarab battle was the most spectacular setpiece visually and gameplay-wise I have played.
There is nothing in any CoD game that comes close.
Anyway, has Jackswastedlife posted his review scores for the CoD series yet? Because those are the textbook definition of "rehash without innovation"
lul
4 Player Coop, Firefight, Theater, Forge, Loadouts, Armor Abilities, Equipment, Dual Wielding...
I sort of feel bad for the EGM dude. Good for him or her as it may be that they tried to defend themselves. They made an attempt to justify themselves. And competing with 20 posts calling you out, and maybe having one or two defenders is tough. So no need to pile on.
But yeah it was a terrible review. And yes we notice it because it is an outlier. The same thing happened with Gears of War with a 10 out of 10 review because the review itself did not make sense to some people. If you are going to be on the fringe, then people will analyze it. If you are in the middle, nobody cares.
Everyone has made every argument that could be made attacking this review. The general argument by the reviewer is the equivalent of why is the new Sim CIty not as satisfying to me to the new CIvilization which I prefer? That is not a valid argument, and it is a bad perspective to take. So just learn from it. You could try and review it again and still give it a 7 out of 10, but I would hope in the future you would put a bit more pregame effort into it especially with such a huge release.
But yeah it was a terrible review. And yes we notice it because it is an outlier. The same thing happened with Gears of War with a 10 out of 10 review because the review itself did not make sense to some people. If you are going to be on the fringe, then people will analyze it. If you are in the middle, nobody cares.
Everyone has made every argument that could be made attacking this review. The general argument by the reviewer is the equivalent of why is the new Sim CIty not as satisfying to me to the new CIvilization which I prefer? That is not a valid argument, and it is a bad perspective to take. So just learn from it. You could try and review it again and still give it a 7 out of 10, but I would hope in the future you would put a bit more pregame effort into it especially with such a huge release.
DJTaurusGR
Neo Member
I never enjoyed halo universe and those paid reviews from Microsoft..
When those two scarabs dropped down in front of you, and the realization of what you had to do dawned upon you...there are no words.
You should start a thread about it. This conspiracy needs a leader, and I think that leader may be you.
abacab driver
Banned
Oh man..lol
gollumsluvslave
Member
I think more than anything the EGM author kept it alive because of his ridiculous tweet:-
Which I notice he never addressed in the mountain of trite and pointless waffle that he posted in an attempt to defend the review points.
The combination of Halo 4 having 'no fucking soul' and the criticisms that apparently constitute said absence of soul is an indication that the reviewer is either:-
1. A troll
2. Broussard was actually right and he is a little bit retarded
3. He himself has no soul
That said, I really LIKE his review due mostly due to the criticism of :-
and (I'm paraphrasing)
'goddamn aliums won't die unless I pump them full of too many bullets this shit is too hard mang!'
These are two of the fundamental things that I love about Halo, so it has got me stoked that although some other reviews have criticised the game for the EXACT POLAR OPPOSITE (no large areas, too easy AI is weaker in places), that maybe it still retains some of the Halo DNA.
Pudding Tame
Member
Go read the CVG review, it's written by somebody who understands the play mechanics in the series and is able to clearly explain with examples the things he didn't like about it. The reviewer gave the game an 8, however if he decided to give the game a 7, given how well written the article is, you sure wouldn't be seeing this level derision that the EGM review is getting.
nillapuddin
Member
"way too many fucking bullets to eliminate an enemy" - Call of Duty Black Ops 2 Box Quote
I reviewed Skyward Sword a 4 out of 5 (nine days before release), and I literally got death threats.
Yeesh.
Edit: Eh, the profanity was unnecessary.
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Dude, comments like yours and the guy you quoted actually piss me off more than the review in question itself, so congratulations on that!
This issue here is not about skyward sword and the issue is not about the review score, it's about the content of the review. The reviewer bashed Halo for not having iron sights and the reviewer wants Halo to be more linear and scr...
Ah fuck it I won't bother.
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
I don't really buy into any argument that other shooters have somehow blasted past Halo, ADS be damned. It still felt fresh playing Reach, because there just aren't that many shooters that let me pummel enemies with (or without) a warthog. And then I got pummeled because the enemies actually moved around and did shit. But then I stuck a grenade on grunt who then panicked and ran for help, taking care of some enemies along the way. And then I boarded an enemy vehicle which I used to boost into an elite, etc.
That type of fluid combat scenario on a dime has been in place since Halo CE, and it just isn't something that has been matched or bettered. I really can't say how ADS would affect the game, but I'm not keen on the idea of linearity. Works for some games, but those have been my least favorite Halo moments.
That type of fluid combat scenario on a dime has been in place since Halo CE, and it just isn't something that has been matched or bettered. I really can't say how ADS would affect the game, but I'm not keen on the idea of linearity. Works for some games, but those have been my least favorite Halo moments.
Bullshit. There are hundreds of reviews every fucking year with just as little content, but they give the game an inflated score in line with the rest of the press. This review may not be a masterpiece, but it would not come under one-tenth the scrutiny had it been written with equal quality but given a nine or ten.
Low reviews to popular franchises are ALWAYS called out, regardless of content. The overreactions are ridiculous, and in my and several others' cases, at least mildly frightening.
REMEMBER CITADEL
Banned
While that's true to some extent, his review is ridiculous. I wouldn't cause nearly as much stir if he didn't come here to defend his Halo-should-have-ADS-and-be-more-scripted stance.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
The only advice I can give people is to always expect the widest berth of opinions when it comes to a game, and there will always be a reviewer who suggests things that will upset a significant group of people. It doesn't even really matter how rational or sensible those suggestions are. People will be pissed.
It does give you a good idea of a reviewer's mindset though, what they like/dislike about certain games, and what they're able to appreciate. I don't even like Halo very much but personally, the suggestion that the series needs iron sights is as far removed from the entire game's core philosophy of design that to suggest it shows you really want to play something completely, utterly different. And thus your suggestion, to me, is moot.
It does give you a good idea of a reviewer's mindset though, what they like/dislike about certain games, and what they're able to appreciate. I don't even like Halo very much but personally, the suggestion that the series needs iron sights is as far removed from the entire game's core philosophy of design that to suggest it shows you really want to play something completely, utterly different. And thus your suggestion, to me, is moot.
while true, IGN got mocked as well for a very bad review - and that was a 10.
The thing that dragged this on was that the reviewer discussed his review in this thread.
Edit: Nevvvvermind, misunderstood
So you don't think that Halo needs to have "modern mechanics" like ADS deserves a calling out? Not to mention the one who said it is also replying back with even more crazy.
I personally don't even bother with reviews, but his opinion is pretty damn out there. You could have picked a better review to be defending.
HollovVpo1nt
Banned
Oufcorse low reviews get called out. We've seen it most big launches, Gears, Uncharted etc. Which simply is fanboyism. In most of the reviews that people call out, they complain about the critisism of reviewers on things that the player/ non-reviewer can not possibly know, because they haven't played the game.
It's very different in this case. I honestly didn't even know the review score for the longest part of the discussion. In this case, the reviewer complains about stuff that makes Halo, Halo. That's unacceptable.
If the controls don't feel good, then oke. If the level design is bad, then please do report it. If the animations suck, by al means, share it with us. If the visuals suck, then tear 'em a new one sport! But don't you fucking go campaigning for scripted evens, linearity and ADS in a franchise that is loved for more than a decade for completely the opposite.
Minority versus majority opinion. It's unpopular, but that doesn't mean it isn't valid. Someone might say, "Resident Evil 6 really needs to adopt a more flexible shooting mechanic", and we might all agree.
I'm not saying that no one can criticize an opinion...of course we can, and it's plenty of fun...but the level of vitriol, especially from people who *have not played the game in question*, is wildly disproportionate.
But yes, coming in to the lion's den and smacking the lion in the face with a lambchop isn't really the best course of action. Shame on you, reviewer person. = D
Did you even read the thread? Nobody said a damn thing about the score(well other than certain "gamers" celebrating Halo getting knocked down a point on metacritic,lol) , people are taking issue with the assertion that Halo should strive to be a COD clone,with tacked on ADS, small levels, with scripted sequences, in order to be considered as "getting with the times".
An opinion can be very weak though. You don't even have to play Halo to know how wrong it is. EatChildren seems to have worded quite well:
Once again, I simply hold that it is unpopular. The general view among more hardcore gamers (and myself) is that linear, highly-scripted Hollywood sequences are not very interesting from a gameplay perspective. Thus, a reviewer hoping for those mechanics is getting roasted.
However, if he were to suggest that Halo was getting stale and should consider implementing more modern mechanics from (insert some beloved stuff here), the anger would be far lessened. The basic structure of this criticism is certainly valid: we could get angry at games not implementing certain features that others implement, like save-anywhere, or multiple difficulty levels, or the ability to pause during cutscenes.
AltogetherAndrews
Banned
I think that it to some extent is based on a fear that it might somehow end up actually affecting future games in the series. I think it's misplaced fear, but fear has nothing to do with reason. COD has had a big impact on shooters, and I'd say it hasn't always been positive. For anyone who likes what Halo does, and then specifically what it does different from the flock, the idea that it could move toward the COD-range in terms of gameplay is a nasty thought.
Stripper13
Member
There is always going to be a reaction to lower than expected reviews, I get that. However if this were a fleeting 7/10 score with a well written review that mentioned disliking the objectives in campaign - or the backtracking - or the empty environments. It would have been brought up, debated for a few posts (by some of the more passionate fans I imagine) and dropped.
This review however, is bullshit. I don't want him to rate it higher than 7/10 - I wouldn't give a fuck if it got 1/10... I want some clarification on why it was disappointing - or why it is souless? Suggesting that Halo's environments are too open, or that the enemies take too many bullets, or the ADS-suggestion - are ridiculous and entirely undeserving of the score that was assigned. It's the responsibility of the reviewer/editor to at least do a little homework.
I thought Amnesia was a pretty awful game. I'm not a fan of survival/horror games - particularly when I am entirely helpless to defend myself. Knowing that - it's probably not a good idea that I review A Machine for Pigs - Gamers and the audience reviewers are writing to are absolutely intelligent enough to know at least what genre the game they're reading about falls in. Thus, should they be interested enough to read a review about AMfP - they should expect the reviewer to at least have some appreciation of what the game is about - and what experience it is trying to deliver.
More importantly (and particularly relevant to the 7/10 review) - I would not mutter terrible suggestions to improve the game. If you didn't like it - be clear, explain yourself - give the score - move on. Don't write ridiculous statements about what would make it better or that ADS would be an improvement. "Hey guys, I thought A Machine for Pigs was pretty boring - I spent most of the game running away. I think the game should catch up with the times and let me use some weapons like Resident Evil - this game needs some soul". It's a joke of a statement, bordering on unprofessional - and reads like what a Call of Duty fanatic would suggest for Halo (I know full well that he is NOT a CoD fanatic).
Mmm, this is a pretty good post.
And what is exactly wrong with people making their preferences clear? The major problem is here that he is mentioning a mechanic that goes against the core gameplay of what an established franchise is known for. Without properly stating what benefit it will bring. Stuff is beloved because we know the benefits. With stuff we dislike we know the disadvantages. He brings no valid arguments as to why ADS is good idea.
Soulless is by far the worst criticism anyone can throw, it's a complete free pass from critical thought, it requires no substantiating, because the reader accepts it can't be substantiated. It can just be thrown out to discredit a work.
If you can't articulate the things you're finding disappointing, do not resort to that tactless shit.
If you can't articulate the things you're finding disappointing, do not resort to that tactless shit.