I'd imagine it wouldn't be a big deal. Yeah the reviews matter, but the difference between a 88 and a 92 is negligible. What really matters is what the community thinks. They're the ones that are gonna play the hell out of this game.
Halo 4: Review Thread
- Thread starter Vire
- Start date
I'd imagine it wouldn't be a big deal. Yeah the reviews matter, but the difference between a 88 and a 92 is negligible. What really matters is what the community thinks. They're the ones that are gonna play the hell out of this game.
What is "batshit off the wall" about it? It's well written and he articulates his problems with the game concisely.
I haven't played it so I have no idea if I agree with those comments but there is nothing off the wall about them.
Neuromancer
Member
Tom Chick's track record on Halo games
3 - a colossal disappointment
ODST - thumbs down (review no longer online)
Reach - 6.5/10 (review also no longer online)
(Nothing against the guy, he's welcome to his opinion. Just know where he's coming from.)
3 - a colossal disappointment
ODST - thumbs down (review no longer online)
Reach - 6.5/10 (review also no longer online)
(Nothing against the guy, he's welcome to his opinion. Just know where he's coming from.)
Vire
Member
Just seems an utter lack of respect to developers and their craft on the part of the journalists. I can totally understand not liking the game, that's fine. But a 2? I've seen enough of the campaign to know for certain that it is definitely not in that range. The production values alone merit some sort of respect. Do you understand how hard people worked on this thing for three years? All that for some measly hits? Have some integrity.
Unfortunately, people's bonuses and the like depend on these scores. I remember Fallout Vegas was 1 point away from receiving the bonus on MetaCritic and didn't get it because of some 5's and 6's... (Which the game certainly is not that)
Well written? What part of this is well-written?
It comes off as person with a scatterbrain train of thought.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
Review for Gameplanet New Zealand by my friend Adam Goodall: http://www.gameplanet.co.nz/xbox/games/2005761.Halo-4/reviews/1014751.Halo-4/
8.5/10
"Welcome back."
Nice that they included a disclosure paragraph:
8.5/10
"Welcome back."
Nice that they included a disclosure paragraph:
Halo is made by an in house studio. 343 is going to get their paycheck no matter what the game gets. So I doubt they care about what number comes up on metacritic.
I feel bad for Obsidian because they were an independent studio who were screwed over by Bethesda. Also Fallout New Vegas was amazing, better than the original Fallout in many ways.
Vire
Member
Agreed totally. I much preferred New Vegas, but whatcha gonna do. *Shrug*
So, it comes off as Tom Chick. It's an entertaining-to-read review that never once talks about any technical garbage. I really appreciate his review style, always have.
If it does affect someone's bonus, should he score the game differently? Is that any different than 343 paying for better scores?
There was a line in reference to the perk / weapon unlock system which was "Now it means getting beat by guys who are better than me and who have better weapons and abilities unlocked." and I find that kind of bizarre. No further details are given. Multiplayer is simply "about" getting beat by guys better than you? I would be equally unimpressed by a 5/5 review that said something like "You can unlock awesome perks and weapons, and its all about killing guys who suck!".
Another line that comes to mind, used about the story was "Meanwhile, aliens something something...", and I just think its a lazy style of criticism you could use against any story if you want.
Should reviewers start at 4 so they don't hurt feelings? How about 6? 6 is about where reviews seem to start unless it's a complete fuckup. I think 10/10 reviews are just as bad as 2/10 if not worse. If they're ego is so fragile perhaps they shouldn't be reading reviews unless someone filters out the negative ones.
Review scores should NEVER determine bonuses. That just taints the whole review process if someone withholds a negative review due to guilt.
Vire
Member
I have no problem with him giving the game a 2 if he truly believes that's what it deserves. But I somehow doubt that's the reason he gave it that score.
The guy has a re-occuring track record of giving controversial reviews to get hits. It's definitely not just this one time.
Jim Sterling is the same way.
It's stupid. However, it's no more stupid than IGN giving the game a 9.8. I like to think that these extreme reviews that are written with an agenda balance themselves at the end.
Vire
Member
Yeah, maybe. Part of the reason why outliers should be eliminated from Metacritic.
Take out the 10's and 1's. It fucks everything up.
In the end, I don't really care all that much, but I do feel for the people who worked hard on the game.
Maybe they should go to an olympic-style scoring method or something? Throw out the 5 lowest and 5 highest scores?
That Xbox Addict review is horrible.
He didn't review the game for Metacritic. He reviewed it for his site, and a 1/5 on QT3 doesn't have to have anything to do with technical issues.
I know it's a dead horse of an argument, but I just don't understand why Halo is constantly getting flogged in reviews for being the same formula with little improvement. I remember IGN's video review of Halo 2 saying the same damn thing. "More evolutionary than revolutionary, etc." Yet every new Call of Duty comes out and gets the same ridiculous praise for not fixing what isn't broken and for fine tuning the "proven" formula. I know different reviews and such, I just wish there was some sort of consistency across the board.
RealDeadOne
Member
If Halo and New Vegas are 2/10 and F, then I really would like to see what he gives an actually broken and awful game
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
Well, for one thing I remember he revealed something major that happens around the end of the game.
5/5? To get more hits.
New Vegas was actually broken, at least for him.
New Vegas was broken for him.
He could literally go no further in the game due to it being a buggy mess at launch.
This tends to puzzle me as well, watching Halo get flack for not reinventing the wheel while Madden; the shooter gets a pass. I wonder if any reviewers will give BLOPS 2 a 1 out of 5.
Reach has a higher metacritic rating (91) than MW3 (88) and BLOPS (87). Both series get more praise than they deserve. Halo has just been getting such a high level of praise for longer. Eventually a few reviewers will be unhappy with the same core experience over several sequels... that doesn't only apply to Halo.
RealDeadOne
Member
Yeah, I realized after I typed that that it actually really is a buggy piece garbage tech-wise.
Still, I dislike the 2/10 for the same reason I dislike the 9's, I feel like it leaves no room for anything to be significantly worse or better.
Maybe I'm crazy, but I get a bit uneasy when a game gets reviewed and marked down on the basis of not hitting a particular standard in a sub-genre its not attempting to break into.
Marking down Uncharted 3, for instance, because of the linearity of the story and setpieces misses the point of Uncharted to begin with. Its like proclaiming that a comedy movie is a failure as a horror movie, and marking it down.
I don't understand why we need to have a homogenized first-person shooter paradigm across all FPS's. I also don't always understand why reviewers often-times feel the need to mark-down a game if it doesn't reinvent the wheel with each version. Progress and new ideas are one thing, but catering to everyone at the expense of the uniqueness of a game's experience seems detrimental.
Bottom line, if I play a Halo game, I want to play a game that "feels" like a Halo game. If I want to play CoD, I play CoD. If I want to play a sandbox game, I play Saints Row or GTA. Some things go great together like peanut butter and chocolate, others don't, like pickles and asparagus.
Neuromancer
Member
I think the obvious difference is more people like CoD games for what they are than like Halo games for what they are. I don't think it's a conspiracy or anything.
(I do also think the tide is starting to turn on the CoD style game, at least the campaigns anyway. Fatigue seems to be setting in with a lot of reviewers. Whether that will translate to harsher reviews, hard to say.)
Unknown One
Member
It's just a fancy zoom that blocks half your screen.
Brad Grenz
Member
In fact, his save game is still unplayably broken, after all the patches and DLC they shipped. He still can't finish the game.
AranhaHunter
Banned
Not a Halo fan by any stretch of the imagination, but a 1/5 score is completely and utterly ridiculous. 2/10 should be for games that are barely playable and broken. Things that Halo 4 is not. I think this proves more that the review system used on metacritic is broken than anything else.
He gave New Vegas the review people wished critics would have given the PS3 version of Skyrim.
Pretty much, not to mention it makes no sense for a spartan to need to aim down sites.
Deputy Moonman
Member
He's not reviewing the game on its own merits or for what it's supposed to be. He's reviewing it based on what he wants the game to be, which is not very objective. From his review score history, apparently he's still waiting for Halo to transform into something completely different, lol.
Baconsammy
Banned
It's consistent with the reviewer though. He's a LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME kind of guy.
Brad Grenz
Member
Yup. It's like when I was in high school (briefly). I may have been the smartest person in the room, and my teachers may have thought I was awesome, but they still had to flunk me when I skipped half my classes and refused to do any homework.
Maybe I'm weird, but I prefer a polished familiar franchise experience compared to a new entry that has a lot of issues with new additions that may or many not fit with the established formula. I think that's the major problem with Reach. A lot of reviews that I read before it came out praised how they added armor abilities and it was a new depth to the combat sandbox. Then everyone gets their hands on the game and finds these new armor abilities break many aspects of the formula. Halo 4 seems to have balanced them out properly, thus it should be a better game.
I just think many gaming writers get too caught up on buzz words and notions of revolution. I don't want developers adding new features to new entries simply so they can say "look, we're revolutionizing our game." Besides, each Halo game has altered the formula. Anyone familiar with the franchise realizes Halo 3 plays a hell of a lot differently than Halo 2, which played a hell of a lot differently than Combat Evolved. Movement speed, gun damage, new weapons and abilities all add to this. Sure, its not a complete revamp of the formula, but they're still substantial changes.
Didn't mean for this post to be so long.
It's really a shame. You know, I'm going to pick up Halo 4 on Tuesday and likely enjoy it very much, but I don't think that means I should fucking cry and whine because someone gave the game a 7/10 because he feels like the gameplay was outdated. That's his opinion. He's a journalist that gets payed for his opinion.
If it were a review for some other game, no one would complain, or likely even notice. Yes, a LOT of people like Halo because the gameplay has remained relatively similar throughout the series, but that doesn't mean the guy should completely kneel and give the game a 10 because he's expected to. You know, a lot of you all are really hypocritical about that. You don't want reviewers to be payed off or give an undeserved score due to monetary gain, but you also don't want someone to speak their true opinion on something you hold dear, especially if they have different opinions on things. You want unbiased reviews, but you also only want reviewers to critique and knock game for the "right" reasons; your reasons. It's a real shame.
No, it's not a completely objective review. No review in the history of reviews has ever been completely objective. There are people who hate Ocarina of Time, Twilight Zone, Abbey Road, or Citizen Kane. Does that mean they're wrong? Maybe in your or my mind, but I'd rather them speak their own opinion then just blend in with everyone else and shut up so that they can be safe. A nice little safe world, with safe views, and no noise. Everything is happy and in it's place. No thinking necessary. Well I don't want that. I may not agree with the guy, but it's a fucking joke that you people call for his blood (so to speak) because he gave his opinion on the game and its place in gaming. It's come to the point where if you give a game with a huge name a high score, then you're a corporate shill, and if you give a game a "bad" score, then they're seeking hits and attention.
This happens with a lot game reviews, but if it's a franchise with a huge pedigree, it is almost always called out and blown out of proportion. It's almost the same situation over and over again when a new Nintendo game from a long standing franchise comes out. The reviewer says that they wish more had changed and gotten with current trends, and then everyone says the reviewer is begging for hits, or doesn't understand the game. These game franchises become bullet-proof because of their fanbase. Instead of just saying they disagree with the reviewer's opinions, they say the reviewer is poor at their job, should be fired, and then start comparing the game's score to other games that have recently been released, or past games in the series and yell and scream at the "injustice" of it. It's silly.
If it were a review for some other game, no one would complain, or likely even notice. Yes, a LOT of people like Halo because the gameplay has remained relatively similar throughout the series, but that doesn't mean the guy should completely kneel and give the game a 10 because he's expected to. You know, a lot of you all are really hypocritical about that. You don't want reviewers to be payed off or give an undeserved score due to monetary gain, but you also don't want someone to speak their true opinion on something you hold dear, especially if they have different opinions on things. You want unbiased reviews, but you also only want reviewers to critique and knock game for the "right" reasons; your reasons. It's a real shame.
No, it's not a completely objective review. No review in the history of reviews has ever been completely objective. There are people who hate Ocarina of Time, Twilight Zone, Abbey Road, or Citizen Kane. Does that mean they're wrong? Maybe in your or my mind, but I'd rather them speak their own opinion then just blend in with everyone else and shut up so that they can be safe. A nice little safe world, with safe views, and no noise. Everything is happy and in it's place. No thinking necessary. Well I don't want that. I may not agree with the guy, but it's a fucking joke that you people call for his blood (so to speak) because he gave his opinion on the game and its place in gaming. It's come to the point where if you give a game with a huge name a high score, then you're a corporate shill, and if you give a game a "bad" score, then they're seeking hits and attention.
This happens with a lot game reviews, but if it's a franchise with a huge pedigree, it is almost always called out and blown out of proportion. It's almost the same situation over and over again when a new Nintendo game from a long standing franchise comes out. The reviewer says that they wish more had changed and gotten with current trends, and then everyone says the reviewer is begging for hits, or doesn't understand the game. These game franchises become bullet-proof because of their fanbase. Instead of just saying they disagree with the reviewer's opinions, they say the reviewer is poor at their job, should be fired, and then start comparing the game's score to other games that have recently been released, or past games in the series and yell and scream at the "injustice" of it. It's silly.
That Tom Chick review is 10x better than that other one who gave the game a 7/10.
Says the guy who claims he just uses his 360 for voice chat while he plays PS3..
Baconsammy
Banned
Saying Halo needs iron sights isn't an opinion. It's fucking stupid.
higherARC05
Banned
When should we expect the Gametrailers HALO 4 review?
Well, lately it's been true as I've only been playing a couple games and both are multiplat and both I own on ps3. I mostly said that as a joke to offset the "ps3 is good... as a bluray player" comment.
Regardless, I don't see how that as anything at all to do with what you bolded.
soulassssns
Banned
After the SP campaign footage embargo lift.
Didn't the IGN video review contain campaign footage?