Support NeoGAF

[TheOddOne]

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.

I respect you Feep, but I feel your making it out that fans are overreacting way too much while there are some very valid complaints against the reviewer. Yes, a lot of people jumped on him but mostly they are echoing what HiredN00bs said. The reviewer himself came in to defend his review, but avoiding actually defending it. I don't feel fans or people in general made this a big problem, but the reviewer himself sparked this. Everybody would have mocked that review and think nothing of it if he didn't respond.

I still don't get why "modern game design" needs to be infused so much in Halo, i.e. the CoD like feedback system in multiplayer already feels unnecessary – too much being conveyed that actually could be done more subtly. The fact that Halo games stick to their strengths, like big open locations, backtracking and sandbox like combat should be respected. Not every game has to be the exact carbon copy of the other. Enhancements on top of those strengths need to emphasized, not complete removal of the things that make it great and unique.

 

[Feep]

I respect you Feep, but I feel your making it out that fans are overreacting way too much while there are some very valid complaints against the reviewer. Yes, a lot of people jumped on him but mostly they are echoing what HiredN00bs said. The reviewer himself came in to defend his review, but avoiding actually defending it. I don't feel fans or people in general made this a big problem, but the reviewer himself sparked this. Everybody would have mocked that review and think nothing of it if he didn't respond.

I still don't get why "modern game design" needs to be infused so much in Halo, i.e. the CoD like feedback system in multiplayer already feels unnecessary – too much being conveyed that actually could be done more subtly. The fact that Halo games stick to their strengths, like big open locations, backtracking and sandbox like combat should be respected. Not every game has to be the exact carbon copy of the other. Enhancements on top of those strengths need to emphasized, not complete removal of the things that make it great and unique.

I just view it as a basic issue of respect. He has an unpopular opinion; that elements of games he might find superior should replace those he finds stale and boring. Everyone seems to be treating this as some basic lack of research or telling a falsehood, but that's not true: he's simply stating his opinion that he enjoys certain mechanics over others, and that Halo would be improved were it to adopt said mechanics. The fact that Halo has always avoided ADS doesn't mean that saying ADS would be good is "incorrect".

I'm simply especially susceptible because I've been there; I've voiced an unpopular opinion and been utterly razed to the ground for it. Admittedly, I didn't try to defend myself awkwardly in a forum full of angry people, and that was stupid. But I can't help but feel for the dude.

 

[sonicmj1]

I'm not trying to defend the review, and it's worth criticizing. But I already said I kind of agree with Feep. People are hard on the outliers in a way that they aren't for something that "falls in line". I mean, isn't that Eurogamer 8.0 review of Uncharted 3 the perfect example of that kind of thing? That was a much better review than this one, but because it critiqued the game's scripted moments, people jumped on the reviewer as not understanding what Uncharted was all about.

I don't think there's anything to be done about it, but I'd rather see people critical of bad writing and reasoning no matter what score it comes with.

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

I just view it as a basic issue of respect. He has an unpopular opinion; that elements of games he might find superior should replace those he finds stale and boring.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Halo did implement elements from other games and made that work within the Halo sandbox, primaraly the loadout and 'perk' system. However, a reviewer should also respect a game for what it is and what it's not. You can't expect a person who reviewes games like Blur and Split Second to review Gran Turismo 6, and get away with comments that it should be more arcade.

Everyone seems to be treating this as some basic lack of research or telling a falsehood, but that's not true: he's simply stating his opinion that he enjoys certain mechanics over others, and that Halo would be improved were it to adopt said mechanics. The fact that Halo has always avoided ADS doesn't mean that saying ADS would be good is "incorrect".

People enjoy certain mechanics over other mechanics because the mechanics they enjoy add to the game. ADS in a (military) shooter reduces recoil and increases accuracy and therefor ADS has a purpose. It doesn't have a purpose in Halo. The recoil is minimal and there is little to no bloom. That's regarding ADS. Regarding his asinine comment about linearity, he feels that Halo should be more linear and scripted. The charm of Halo always has been that it's encounters and battles always have been exciting and unique every time you approach them, without resorting to linearity and scripted events. For example, look at this glorious two scarab battle from Halo 3. The power of Halo allows you to approch that scene in a different way, every single time you play. You control the Hornet (aricraft), you can fly around, you can even get out of the Hornet and shoot the damn things with a plasma pistol if you'd like. Added to that, the Scarabs are AI and behave differently every single time.

You know how that scene would have worked out in a COD approch? A scripted flying path, scripted movement by the scarabs and all you do is shoot a turret from the side of the Hornet. That's it.

I'm simply especially susceptible because I've been there; I've voiced an unpopular opinion and been utterly razed to the ground for it. Admittedly, I didn't try to defend myself awkwardly in a forum full of angry people, and that was stupid. But I can't help but feel for the dude.

As weird as it sounds, because opinions are subjective, the opinion of the EGM reviewer is stupid.

Oh and:

In the case of this review, I don't believe the opinion was well argued at all. In fact it is almost completely absent of any argument. It is a singular claim, seemingly unfounded in any rational beyond "I really like this so the game should have it", neither explaining why the game is flawed without it, or why the game would be enhanced with it.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

I'm not trying to defend the review, and it's worth criticizing. But I already said I kind of agree with Feep. People are hard on the outliers in a way that they aren't for something that "falls in line". I mean, isn't that Eurogamer 8.0 review of Uncharted 3 the perfect example of that kind of thing? That was a much better review than this one, but because it critiqued the game's scripted moments, people jumped on the reviewer as not understanding what Uncharted was all about.

In the context of this thread I'd have to disagree - there was a 5 (Blistered Thumbs) that passed without much discussion, and the 9.8 from IGN has had almost as much diatribe against it as the EGM one, and for the same reason - the content of both reviews are both really poor, even though one is praising the game and the other is criticising it.

It's one of the biggest games of the year, and both EGM and IGN are 2 of the bigger reviewers out there - the quality of the writing and critique is more what is under scrutiny. Personally I can't believe someone actually gets paid for that standard of work.

But hey ho, as always YMMV.

 

[ThankeeSai]

Armor Lock killed Reach.

Yep.

The cheapest, most annoying Armor Ability, ever.

How they thought it was a good idea and how it actually made it pasty testing and into the game is anyones guess.

 

[danwarb]

I know I caught flack for suggesting that Madden NFL would be better with the more soccery mechanics of FIFA. Also my thoughts on Forza not getting with the future times by adding weapon pickups, boosts and the like to match the more soulful and exciting heights of Wipeout didn't go down well.

 

[EatChildren]

I just view it as a basic issue of respect. He has an unpopular opinion; that elements of games he might find superior should replace those he finds stale and boring. Everyone seems to be treating this as some basic lack of research or telling a falsehood, but that's not true: he's simply stating his opinion that he enjoys certain mechanics over others, and that Halo would be improved were it to adopt said mechanics. The fact that Halo has always avoided ADS doesn't mean that saying ADS would be good is "incorrect".

I'm simply especially susceptible because I've been there; I've voiced an unpopular opinion and been utterly razed to the ground for it. Admittedly, I didn't try to defend myself awkwardly in a forum full of angry people, and that was stupid. But I can't help but feel for the dude.

While I totally agree with volatile behaviour of some fans of some series whenever it comes to negativity, because I've been there too (hello Epic Mickey). But when a reviewer states his opinion, it is his job to argue it. To back it up with facts, and to construct arguments to support his claims. And in any case, regardless of how strong or flimsy those arguments are, he/she will rightly be subject to criticism and counter-arguments.

In the case of this review, I don't believe the opinion was well argued at all. In fact it is almost completely absent of any argument. It is a singular claim, seemingly unfounded in any rational beyond "I really like this so the game should have it", neither explaining why the game is flawed without it, or why the game would be enhanced with it.

Bad arguments and dumb statements cultivate anger and attacks from people who've had their jimmy's rustled by said argument. I don't necessarily sit in favour of the more hostile and borderline abusive attacks towards the reviewer, but the writer made his bed and now he has to sleep in it.

Every reviewer is responsible for the words they type, and they best be prepared to deal with the consequences.

 

[TheOddOne]

I just view it as a basic issue of respect. He has an unpopular opinion; that elements of games he might find superior should replace those he finds stale and boring. Everyone seems to be treating this as some basic lack of research or telling a falsehood, but that's not true: he's simply stating his opinion that he enjoys certain mechanics over others, and that Halo would be improved were it to adopt said mechanics. The fact that Halo has always avoided ADS doesn't mean that saying ADS would be good is "incorrect".

I'm simply especially susceptible because I've been there; I've voiced an unpopular opinion and been utterly razed to the ground for it. Admittedly, I didn't try to defend myself awkwardly in a forum full of angry people, and that was stupid. But I can't help but feel for the dude.

I would not take it too personal, as reviewer you know that some people will always disagree regardless. People will jump on reviews, but for some things you can see a backlash from far away (i.e. IGN's hyperbole text). I respect the EGM reviewer, I’m going to go down the path to disregard his opinion just on the basis of this review but I do criticize the stance in the review. I respect him for even trying to come in this thread to discuss, which not a lot of reviewers do (for obvious reasons).

The things in EGM review that are seen as “improvements” are actually things that take huge steps backwards in game design. Games need to refresh their design, I don’t think people disagree about that, but when the core of it doesn’t even get respected then it is inevitable people will be up in arms. Some of the comments in this thread are justified but some are irrational too. Cut down to the core discussions, without the fluff, mocking or irrationalism, this topic has been very tame and respectful.

 

[Feep]

While I totally agree with volatile behaviour of some fans of some series whenever it comes to negativity, because I've been there too (hello Epic Mickey). But when a reviewer states his opinion, it is his job to argue it. To back it up with facts, and to construct arguments to support his claims. And in any case, regardless of how strong or flimsy those arguments are, he/she will rightly be subject to criticism and counter-arguments.

In the case of this review, I don't believe the opinion was well argued at all. In fact it is almost completely absent of any argument. It is a singular claim, seemingly unfounded in any rational beyond "I really like this so the game should have it", neither explaining why the game is flawed without it, or why the game would be enhanced with it.

Bad arguments and dumb statements cultivate anger and attacks from people who've had their jimmy's rustled by said argument. I don't necessarily sit in favour of the more hostile and borderline abusive attacks towards the reviewer, but the writer made his bed and now he has to sleep in it.

Every reviewer is responsible for the words they type, and they best be prepared to deal with the consequences.

True. Most of the arguments I'm seeing, though (unlike yours and Stripper13's), are that the review somehow isn't respecting Halo, that the reviewer is a heretic for suggesting that it use a mechanic that is not normally associated with the franchise, for suggesting that it deviate from what "makes it Halo".

I agree that it is not particularly well reasoned or backed-up, and that it needs far more detail as to why those mechanics would be beneficial. But once again, the level of outrage is shocking. Poor reasoning and writing don't get this kind of response...poor reasoning and writing, combined with giving an uncommonly low score to a well-known franchise, combined with stupidly attempting to defend himself get this kind of response. And it's just...too much.

 

[danwarb]

The blisteredthumbs 5/10 was far more negative and hardly got a mention. It was more a review of Halo in its own right, by someone who really doesn't like it.

 

[Stripper13]

True. Most of the arguments I'm seeing, though (unlike yours and Stripper13's), are that the review somehow isn't respecting Halo, that the reviewer is a heretic for suggesting that it use a mechanic that is not normally associated with the franchise, for suggesting that it deviate from what "makes it Halo".

I agree that it is not particularly well reasoned or backed-up, and that it needs far more detail as to why those mechanics would be beneficial. But once again, the level of outrage is shocking. Poor reasoning and writing don't get this kind of response...poor reasoning and writing, combined with giving an uncommonly low score to a well-known franchise, combined with stupidly attempting to defend himself get this kind of response. And it's just...too much.

I'd agree with that. If it had been in the 9 range, there's a chance that the content of the review would have been swept under the rug far quicker (but laughed at all the same, just like the IGN review). The 7 only highlighted the review. Personally, I had read his first response before I knew who he was, who he wrote for, and what score he gave - and I still replied to get him to see why Halo does not need ADS. I would not have come across the review at all, had it not been highlighted in this very thread.

Of course, coming to defend himself may have been a good idea if:
1) He had any sort of ground to stand on to defend his position - and I think it's kind of obvious at this point that most of his statements regarding possible change were ridiculous.
OR
2) He was able to write anything substantial enough to quell some of the reactions. His 2nd reply was fluff. Some statements implying he knew more than we though he did, calling out someone for questioning his intelligence, and some more broadstroke statements about ADS. It served only to fan the flames - and for me personally, bring more attention to the fact that maybe he wasn't the right reviewer for the job... because even after some fairly articulate explanations of WHY he was 'wrong' - he still wasn't able to see it, or defend himself.

I don't feel bad for the guy though - he gets paid for this. Writing reviews is easy - I could play a game and do a significant write-up on it, assign a score, and submit it for people to read. The challenge, at least to do the job well and earn your salary, is to articulate your position (whatever it may be), develop your arguments and do some homework on the WHY. I feel for the poor reviewers who got handed the first few copies of Demon Souls - they had effectively nothing to work with. I'm not sure how the reviews went down, but I don't imagine it was an easy job write an informed piece. The same can't be said for Halo however.

Edit: It's a shame that you received threats for a review. The combination of franchise fanboyism (that stretches to movies, comics, superheroes etc.) and Internet anonymity is always going to be an issue. Theoretically, a reviewer should be able to articulate himself and tell their audience why Halo 4 only received a 1/10 score - and that would be it... people would read it, consider his position, debate it among themselves (ask the reviewer questions perhaps) and move on. I could only imagine the negativity a reviewer would receive if they rated it a 1/10 though.

 

[Kujo]

Guys you need to be prepared for when Black Ops 2 gets a higher metascore

 

[gollumsluvslave]

But once again, the level of outrage is shocking. Poor reasoning and writing don't get this kind of response...poor reasoning and writing, combined with giving an uncommonly low score to a well-known franchise, combined with stupidly attempting to defend himself get this kind of response. And it's just...too much.

Again disagree, the EGM reviewer tweeted that Halo has 'no fucking soul', that's outright trolling and for a game reviewer it's irresponsible at the very least, and he deserves to be called out.

To be honest if anything, his 7/10 is too high based on his review and subsequent comments.

 

[The Librarian]

People enjoy certain mechanics over other mechanics because the mechanics they enjoy add to the game. ADS in a (military) shooter reduces recoil and increases accuracy and therefor ADS has a purpose. It doesn't have a purpose in Halo. The recoil is minimal and there is little to no bloom. That's regarding ADS. Regarding his asinine comment about linearity, he feels that Halo should be more linear and scripted. The charm of Halo always has been that it's encounters and battles always have been exciting and unique every time you approach them, without resorting to linearity and scripted events. For example, look at this glorious two scarab battle from Halo 3. The power of Halo allows you to approch that scene in a different way, every single time you play. You control the Hornet (aricraft), you can fly around, you can even get out of the Hornet and shoot the damn things with a plasma pistol if you'd like. Added to that, the Scarabs are AI and behave differently every single time.

You know how that scene would have worked out in a COD approch? A scripted flying path, scripted movement by the scarabs and all you do is shoot a turret from the side of the Hornet. That's it.

I can only imagine how that encounter would've been handled in a Call of Duty campaign. Just sends shivers down your spine.

 

[GazzaScotland]

Low reviews, deserved or undeserved, are an easy way for people to make a name for themselves. Nevermind the amount of hits its given them. Now, in no way am I saying this was the plan and they went to give it a low review, but I'm sure they ain't complaining right now.

 

[dragonelite]

Guys you need to be prepared for when Black Ops 2 gets a higher metascore

Everything halo 4 did wrong. Is what blops gives game journalist.
Its kinda like the verge reviewing a wp8 mobile or winRt tablet.

 

[Majanew]

Guys you need to be prepared for when Black Ops 2 gets a higher metascore

I hope he reviews Black Ops 2 for EGM. Would love to read it.

And on Metacritic...where is Xbox Addict's 9.8? What's taking so long, Metapeeps?

 

[A More Normal Bird]

To be honest Feep I think you're either understating or underestimating (possibly both) just how utterly nonsensical the reviewer's comments are. Halo and COD (the obvious reference, no matter how much the reviewer denies it) are chalk and cheese. Are you generally a fan of FPS's? I'm not a massive fan by any means but I can still recognise that the review isn't about wanting Halo 4 to be a better game, it's about wanting it to be a different game.

Like, really different. People are throwing up examples in this thread like suggesting Gran Turismo have weapons added or Madden using the base gameplay of FIFA; while these hypotheticals may seem a little extreme, it's an honest indication of the type of change the EGM reviewer was clamouring for. It's not as if he was arguing for more dynamic enemy AI and listing examples of titles that show that it's possible, or even highlighting redundant or ineffective mechanics. Instead, the majority of the criticism boiled down to lists of facts about the game, followed by "this is bad".

- Large environments. This is bad.

- No ADS. This is obviously bad.

- Lack of totally epic scripted set pieces. Awful.

These are complaints about gameplay elements that are fundamental to the franchise. The reviewer then posits his alternatives as axiomatic to good game design, and that's that. It's a fairly stark dichotomy, but it's one that is manufactured without rhyme or reason. The obnoxious undertone of how the absence of these new features is because the game isn't "modern" or is too "traditional" is just the icing on this terrible cake.

By contrast, the criticisms of the game's story/plotting are (potentially) quite valid. Of course, I can't imagine enjoying a game's story if I'm not invested in the gameplay (unless the lore really grabbed me), so comments about what should amount to window dressing from the reviewer's perspective don't hold much weight with me.

 

[Ricky_R]

The blisteredthumbs 5/10 was far more negative and hardly got a mention.

Probably because it isn't on metacritic.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

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.

No, that's not the problem. I have nothing against those mechanics - I may prefer Halo, but I enjoy CoD and similar games as well. It's about those mechanics having no place in a Halo game. Halo has its own unique feel, it's the main thing about the series that makes it stand out. Millions of people enjoy those mechanics, and while some may also enjoy CoD-like games, there's absolutely nothing to be gained from gutting one of the few unique FPS franchises out there in order to make it more like the current genre leader and a myriad lesser games that are already trying to imitate it.

Not that there's no room for change, and some changes have been made. I expect even more to be introduced with Halo 5, but you'd really have to be thick not to understand why 343i couldn't have done that with Halo 4. It's their first proper game after Bungie's decade-long hold on the series. If 343i strayed too far from the formula, you'd have a flood of articles, probably from EGM as well, decrying it as the game that killed the franchise.

So it's not just an unpopular opinion, it's a puzzling stance to take for someone who calls himself a professional.

 

[dark_prinny]

I Don't care What reviews say.

For me this is the Best ( by far ) Halo to date.

 

[Shurs]

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.

Why are you (and other people) upset about a review of a product you have nothing to do with and have yet to play?

I can understand the discussion surrounding the content of the review, but why are people mad?

It's a video game review. It has no effect on your experience with the game.

 

[Sanjuro]

Why isn't the EGM in the OP?

 

[AdventureRacing]

Why are you (and other people) upset about a review of a product you have nothing to do with and have yet to play?

Usually i agree with this sentiment but in this case you don't need to have played the game to understand what is wrong with the review.

 

[RealDeadOne]

I Don't care What reviews say.

For me this is the Best ( by far ) Halo to date.

Well that's good because most of the reviews seem to agree with that sentiment!

As for the review: everyone is entitled to their opinion, but when you impose ridiculous expectations on a game and then dock it points for not meeting those, then it's a poorly done review.

It's like giving a Total War game a 7 because you tried to play the map screen like Civilization and you're disappointed you can't establish trade networks.

The review should not be removed from Metacritic, the reviewer should not have to defend his opinion. But it does reflect poorly on the integrity of their reviews, I'll say that, and I'm equally entitled to disregard their review as they are to create it.

 

[Shurs]

Usually i agree with this sentiment but in this case you don't need to have played the game to understand what is wrong with the review.

I think the review was bad -- as I'm a proponent of reviewing based on authorial intent rather than on what you'd rather see in the game -- but what I find fascinating is that people are mad about it.

 

[Ricky_R]

I think the review was bad -- as I'm a proponent of reviewing based on authorial intent rather than on what you'd rather see in the game -- but what I find fascinating is that people are mad about it.

I guess you've been fascinated for years now since this is nothing new?

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

I think the review was bad -- as I'm a proponent of reviewing based on authorial intent rather than on what you'd rather see in the game -- but what I find fascinating is that people are mad about it.

Pissed off rather mad. The review pissed me off because it spawned people defending the review. The people who defend the review piss me off because they have no idea what they're talking about and think people are pissed off by the review score.

 

[sflufan]

There's no way this review gets this level of critique if it's a 9 and not a 7.

Have you seen the level of criticism that we've levelled against they ridiculously hyperbolic 9.8 review from IGN?

 

[danwarb]

Poor review gets so much more attention than the more insightful stuff, good or bad. That's a shame.

 

[KageMaru]

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.

Judging by your posts in this thread, you're as clueless as the EGM reviewer.

 

[King Beyond the wall]

The egm 'negative' review actually had the reverse effect on me.
I have been a massive halo fan in the past but was worried that 343 had taken halo 4 away from the formula that I had loved so much, but seeing this thread and the egm review's complaints that halo 4 has large environments, no insane set pieces and no Iron sights has reassured me and convinced me to get the game. Thanks!

 

[RealDeadOne]

Poor review gets so much more attention than the more insightful stuff, good or bad. That's a shame.

Well, what are we even supposed to say about the insightful stuff? I read all the reviews, but there's no discussion to be had about something like that. It's good and insightful, there's nothing more to be said about it.

That said I wish something new would happen so that we could move past the review.

 

[sonicmj1]

Have you seen the level of criticism that we've levelled against they ridiculously hyperbolic 9.8 review from IGN?

Some people rightly say, "This review is ridiculously hyperbolic PR speak," while others reply saying that there's nothing wrong with a reviewer being completely over the moon for a game. People seemed pretty evenly divided about it, and nobody was too interested in really discussing it. This post is about the farthest things get.

The EGM review hits and it warps the thread for a good 15 pages.

 

[rCIZZLE]

Is there a Godwin's Law for CoD yet?

 

[eznark]

Why isn't the EGM in the OP?

.

 

[danwarb]

Some people rightly say, "This review is ridiculously hyperbolic PR speak," while others reply saying that there's nothing wrong with a reviewer being completely over the moon for a game. People seemed pretty evenly divided about it, and nobody was too interested in really discussing it. This post is about the farthest things get.

The EGM review hits and it warps the thread for a good 15 pages.

IGN guy didn't post in this thread or tweet crazy.

 

[TheOddOne]

Poor review gets so much more attention than the more insightful stuff, good or bad. That's a shame.

There is not much to say about them, most of the criticisms seem pretty well written and sound valid. Giantbomb's and Eurogamer's reviews are both fantastic, with some very balanced reporting.

 

[Vire]

I hope he reviews Black Ops 2 for EGM. Would love to read it.

And on Metacritic...where is Xbox Addict's 9.8? What's taking so long, Metapeeps?

Xbox Addict isn't on Metacritic.

Gametrailers review is though.

Why isn't the EGM in the OP?

Sorry, been a bit busy! (AC3, School)

Adding a few now.

 

[sflufan]

Some people rightly say, "This review is ridiculously hyperbolic PR speak," while others reply saying that there's nothing wrong with a reviewer being completely over the moon for a game. People seemed pretty evenly divided about it, and nobody was too interested in really discussing it. This post is about the farthest things get.

The EGM review hits and it warps the thread for a good 15 pages.

Because of the CONTENT and REASONS in the EGM review, not the goddamned score.

I mean, there's a 5/10 review that's not getting any flack because the reviewer articulates his issues within the context of the game, not because it needs to be "modernized."

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

Because of the CONTENT and REASONS in the EGM review, not the goddamned score.

Don't bother.

 

[Hindle]

The reviews mention Halo is going to be reinvented to prevent it from going stale. I disagree, they just need more races to be introduced.

 

[sonicmj1]

Because of the CONTENT and REASONS in the EGM review, not the goddamned score.

I mean, there's a 5/10 review that's not getting any flack because the reviewer articulates his issues within the context of the game, not because it needs to be "modernized."

...

When you asked me if I'd seen the level of criticism raised against the IGN review, I thought you meant that it was comparable to the EGM review. That really wasn't the case.

The EGM reviewer wound up posting in this thread, so that obviously changed things a lot, but I guess you're naturally going to see more discussion around that kind of review than something with press release ready quotations like, "With Halo 4’s immaculate weapon balancing and gun-for-every-situation combat strategies, it needs only a great crop of multiplayer maps in order to qualify for classic status. Fear not, as 343 packs War Games with 10 mostly stellar stages and three additional Forge-built battlegrounds."

 

[HollovVpo1nt]

...

When you asked me if I'd seen the level of criticism raised against the IGN review, I thought you meant that it was comparable to the EGM review. That really wasn't the case.

The EGM reviewer wound up posting in this thread, so that obviously changed things a lot, but I guess you're naturally going to see more discussion around that kind of review than something with press release ready quotations like, "With Halo 4’s immaculate weapon balancing and gun-for-every-situation combat strategies, it needs only a great crop of multiplayer maps in order to qualify for classic status. Fear not, as 343 packs War Games with 10 mostly stellar stages and three additional Forge-built battlegrounds."

The difference between the IGN and EGM review is that the person who reviewed Halo 4 for IGN liked the game very much for what it was* and the guy from EGM didn't like it because he wanted/wants it to be something else. Key difference.

*Admittedly, the reviewer seemed to like the game too much, but at least he explained why he did.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

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.

...Okay dude, this needs to stop.

You spent practically an entire week in the Skyward Sword review thread nearly creaming your pants giving hints that you were going to give it a less than perfect score, and almost openly wishing for "death threats" with statements with all the sincerity of, "Boy, I hope a beautiful sorority doesn't come by and have sex with me!"

You back came running into the thread with the pride of a schoolboy telling mama he got honor roll to jubilantly announce that you'd gotten nasty emails (which we're all sure were real death threats and not trash talk identical to any XBL match) and how "scared" you were, like a giggling teen discussing the latest Paranormal Activity.

We get it already Feep. You've told us your harrowing tale of you nearly died from badly misspelled comments and emails but then you narrowly evaded them about fifty times now. You can come down off your cross now.

 

[Sanjuro]

Sorry, been a bit busy! (AC3, School)

Adding a few now.

Show me the receipts! Actually, don't for school. It'll probably be depressing.

 

[rCIZZLE]

I thought the EGM review would be a lot worse judging by the overreactions I'm seeing everywhere.

I hope he reviews Black Ops 2 for EGM. Would love to read it.

And on Metacritic...where is Xbox Addict's 9.8? What's taking so long, Metapeeps?

Well, to be fair Halo has been stale for longer than CoD and they both seem to add in the same amount of new features with each release.

 

[eznark]

I thought the EGM review would be a lot worse judging by the overreactions I'm seeing everywhere.

His opinions are wrong!!!!!!

 

[Karl2177]

Is it necessarily a review if the reviewer suggests changes to the base game and the objective review of the game is affected by the suggestions? I hate to bring up the whole "gaming journalism" here, but it irks me that a person's objective review is marred by the personal desires for a game.