-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo 5 Review Thread
- Thread starter Twin Tails
- Start date
Twilight Gap
Member
I'll post it in a few days since the game just came out for most people.
That's because the Xbox One version only has only 8 reviews recorded, whilst the PS4 version has 71….
Campaign has issues for some, understandable. Hell, it's even missing some staple modes at launch for the "sustain" plan they got planned to keep people playing, but regardless, campaign is opinionated and I'll find out for myself later today.
Halo 3's campaign was hated by a lot when it first came out as well. IMO, it's the best campaign and one of the best FPS single players overall.
Despite all this, I feel the mp didn't get as much weight as it should have in the reviews, especially arena. This is a true gem of a game in arena and I feel that was poorly reflected because of warzone and campaign.
8
But still, that's just a factor amongst many that affects the aggregation. Bloodborne has 100 reviews. You don't even have a consistent number of people weighing in on each game, let alone the other things I've mentioned in my previous post. Reviewers that may have moved the needle significantly (either in a positive or negative direction) may simply not even be submitting a score at all for one game compared to another.
And it will forever remain just a fun pvp until they learn to separate the crucible from the main game, it needs its separate menu, where you can have your theater mode and private lobbies and things like that, for right now it is what it is, a pvp mode as unbalanced as battlegrounds in World of Warcraft. It's not meant to be a E-Sport, not yet anyway.
With that said, halo OT is moving too fast for me, how is that warzone people?
Chill Penguin
Member
I'm not sure why everyone is freaking out. Sure scoring standards are tougher nowadays, but halo 5 looks to be the best fps of the generation so far. Sounds good to me.
8
But still, that's just a factor amongst many that affects the aggregation. Bloodborne has 100 reviews. You don't even have a consistent number of people weighing in on each game, let alone the other things I've mentioned in my previous post. Reviewers that may have moved the needle significantly (either in a positive or negative direction) may simple not even be submitting a score at all for one game compared to another.
Yeah but what you have to realize is that none of that really matters. Metacritic isn't where it is in terms of impact on games with its scores because of anything complicated, it's just basic human nature. We tend to naturally come to the "laziest" way of doing something, so instead of doing the correct way of researching and making an informed purchase based on all available information, your average person is gonna want to click on one site, read one score, and then be done. It's in our wiring.
Until a website comes out that offers what Metacritic does in a much more "fair" way, and does it while maintaining enough simplicity that just about anyone can use it, Metacritic is here to stay. And people will keep taking that number as the final verdict.
ThatOneGrunt
Member
It is really great. And all in all I think it's reviewed really well. But the people who didn't like the game seem to be making an aggressive effort to let everyone know they really didn't like it. Polygon has taken a strange stance on the game.
I personally have loved it. Completely surprised by how much I like the traversal and vertical movement of the game. Once I figured that stuff out, it started to really feel like a badass Spartan. More so than any other Halo game. Also the sound is incredible. Bullets can sound so far and so close when I'm trying to dodge them. Makes things really intense.
Yea, I completely understand that, and even do that myself in many cases. However, I tend to do that primarily in the case where I'm interested in a game and am looking to maybe purchase it. When I'm on a discussion forum, I'm likely to look at this natural behaviour more rationally before treating the values as gospel to make sweeping comparisons. I kinda assume similar of other people... but threads like this tend to remind me that it's simply not the case for many.
I don't really think there is a "fair" way to do something like metacritic, because at the end of the day, the numbers are arbitrary, and mean different things to different people (as much of this thread shows). If one outlet thinks a game is just okay, they may give it a 7.. but if Edge thinks that same game is just okay, then it'll probably get a 5. There's no real way to reconcile these values into a fair aggregate without somehow introducing objective scoring criteria (which would be ridiculous for entertainment)... and even if you managed that, then why would you even have any aggregation? You'd just need the one score at that point.
The Wraith
Member
Is anyone else not liking the "weighted" feel of the aiming in this game? I played the beta and I don't remember the aiming being this sluggish.
It takes around 10 games for that feel to go away and you just sink into its fluid feel.
I remember the same thing, after a while you'll never go back to anything else. Keep grinding.
This game has less auto aim than any other halo except maybe ce so you actually have to aim instead of point in area and shoot. Maybe thats the weight you feel?
tattooed_dwarf
Member
I don't even want Destiny pvp to require more skill. I like that I can keep months away from it, go back and be instantly on top part of leaderboards. When I do same with Halo, I get wrecked and it takes so many hours before I get to better level. So I can have game for more relaxed PvP and game for more "serious" challenge.
ChaoticBlue
Member
gaming age: 100/100
LOL
LOL
No not at all. I'm sure I'm in the minority with this opinion, but I'd prefer it if they kept the locked 60fps for the multiplayer and ran the campaign at 30fps while offering more open level design and epic firefights. The 1080p resolution isn't so much a factor since it's a dynamic resolution anyways and they already have no issue dropping it down for consistent performance.
ethomaz
Banned
4/5 is 80... that is not a Metacritic fault.
Hockeymac18
Member
I think the issue is using different scales, and lack of normalization between them. On a 5 star scale, there's only 5 (or 6) scores if you use whole stars, and only 10 if you use half stars. But Metacritic is based on a 100 point scale...
Not that it matters that much - just another example of how aggregating heterogeneous data stuff can be problematic. I deal with this stuff all of the time in biostatisitcs, so I know how misleading these kind of things can be if there aren't proper adjustments made.
Phat Michael
Banned
Mine just says "installation stopped" any idea why?
ethomaz
Banned
Sorry to disagree about Destiny guys.
While the Crucible have flaws it does require a lot of skill to play with (even to get used to the best guns like TLW in year 1 because the unique perks).
To be fair the biggest flaw is the lag... most noticeable in Iron Banner weeks.
The shotguns are a bit overpowered but they working on it and it is already nerfed a little... skilled players will kill you before you get close to shotgun kill.
I love the snipers in the game too... fells so good... Pulse Rifles is awesome too... and HC shines in the right hands.
It is competitive from what I played.
PS. I can't compared with Halo 5 MP until I play it... said that Destiny's gunplay is one of the best I ever played in a game.
While the Crucible have flaws it does require a lot of skill to play with (even to get used to the best guns like TLW in year 1 because the unique perks).
To be fair the biggest flaw is the lag... most noticeable in Iron Banner weeks.
The shotguns are a bit overpowered but they working on it and it is already nerfed a little... skilled players will kill you before you get close to shotgun kill.
I love the snipers in the game too... fells so good... Pulse Rifles is awesome too... and HC shines in the right hands.
It is competitive from what I played.
PS. I can't compared with Halo 5 MP until I play it... said that Destiny's gunplay is one of the best I ever played in a game.
Inferno313
Banned
1 Star = 20
2 Star = 40
3 Star = 60
4 Star = 80
5 Star = 100.
Sounds about right to me.
The problem just comes from the fact that game reviewers don't use the whole scale when dealing with numerical scores. They score like they're using academic grades, where anything below a 70 is rough. If we used the whole scale normally, then those numbers all fit perfectly.
ethomaz
Banned
That is the review site issues... not Metacritic... they could use .5 scales or even .1 scales to solve that.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
So you either ignored the number of reviews for each game to make a point or you don't understand basic statistics.
Or maybe you are saying XB1 games are reviewed easier than PS4 games, in that case Halo 5 is really a 80 if you remove the 5 point bias?
So you either ignored the number of reviews for each game to make a point or you don't understand basic statistics.
Or maybe you are saying XB1 games are reviewed easier than PS4 games, in that case Halo 5 is really a 80 if you remove the 5 point bias?
There's no way you're this clueless... regardless of how many times you consistently appear to demonstrate that you are...
I'm not ignoring anything. My whole point is that there are factors beyond the metascore alone, but when the numbers get thrown around in threads like these, then the final score is treated as if they are perfectly in sync across games regardless of the number of reviews, the various scales, the different score weights between outlets, the different people review each etc. All that gets brought up is the score alone to demonstrate one game being objectively better. At what point does the score become accurate? At 8 reviews? 45? 100? When is "not using the whole scale" an issue? People talk about the 7/10 range, but on a 4 point scale, you can't give a 9 etc.
You may notice that I haven't actually claimed that Halo's score would definitely be higher either... maybe these variables are causing it to score higher than a 80, or in Infamous Second Son's case it is the 5 point variation that landed it at 80 rating rather than an 85. My only point is that the aggregate scores aren't concrete, and directly contrastable, because none of the scores have identical variables leading to them.
But of course... you'd miss all this, because practically everything you post is console war bullshit.
Hockeymac18
Member
And I'm saying when you combine scores that come from a 5 score scale with scores from a scale that has 10 scores with scores from another scale that has 100 possible scores, you're going to get some weird results (where a lot of information is lost).
For example, say a reviewer writes for a publication where he/she only has 5 possible scores to give (whole stars only, 5 point scale). Maybe that reviewer thinks the game is really great, but not perfect. So he/she will score it a 4 out of 5 (because 5 would be utter perfection). But maybe if that reviewer wrote for a publication where he/she could give more resolution to the score, he/she might give it a 85, a 90 or maybe even a 95.
Then you take that 80 (which might be higher on a 10/100 point scale) and average it into the 100 point scale that MC forces on all scores - you're left with something that doesn't really reflect reality.
Then people look at that, and think/assume everything was from a 100 point scale, and they start using their ideas of what a "good' score should be, often based on a scool system grading scale where most people would be disappointed with a grade in the 70's, or even 80's since that was how they were raised (myself included)). Although I know better to make those judgements based on MC, most people don't really think these issues through.
You say "it's the review sites" fault - but the review site isn't really worried about MC and how their score will look on it. They might have come up with their simple scale because it makes sense to them (and I have seen some good justifications for a 5 point scale) - especially when you take into account that there is a written review that goes with the score, which is meant to give the score some granularity.
I'm kind of curious why MC hasn't addressed these issues, though, as they're kind of at the very basic level of how their site works.
ethomaz
Banned
I still see no issue about that.
The avg. need to be in lower scales to be fair... 0-100 to avg. 0-5 or 0-10 reviews is fine.
You are just guessing that a possible 4/5 means 85 or 90 but it can be 70 or 75.... 80 is the right number to average.
There is no issue to MC address about that point lol
Hockeymac18
Member
I'm not guessing, it was just an example of how merging different scales is problematic.
It is something that MC should definitely take into account, but does not.
Other people have brought up other sites, such as Rotten Tomatoes, which have a more sensible approach.
AgentP
Thinks mods influence posters politics. Promoted to QAnon Editor.
I'm clueless? You compare a mean from 8 numbers to a mean from 70+ and are surprised they differ? Statistics 101. Either you are dishonest or ignorant.
Did I say anywhere that I was surprised? I picked the example specifically because they differ, and that they differ (by the rather convenient 5 points being discussed) for reasons beyond simply how good the game is (the number of reviews isn't even the only one).
You're basically trying to argue my point back to me, whilst suggesting (rather stupidly) that my point should actually be that Xbox games are being rated higher than they should. So yea... clueless.
Ryouji Gunblade
Member
The reviews should be less about the arbitrary points, and more about the pros and cons that form the opinions the scores reflect.
Pretty sure HaloGaf got nuked because the thread would always go super off-topic and then some somewhat NSFW pictures got posted so the mods got tired of policing the thread.
Nothing "horrible" was going on in there from what I saw.
ethomaz
Banned
Do you want MC created something that enters in the reviewer's head and predict if the 4/5 was an 70-90 score?
Sorry but that is not like avg. works.
80 for 4/5 is perfect.
If the reviewer feels it is showing wrong on MC then he can change to 4.1, 4.3, etc scale... that is not a MC fault... they have nothing to do here.
Chezzymann
Member
No its not. For many people 4/5 is much different in terms of score than an 80. 4/5 can mean 'not quite perfect' while 80 means 'flawed but still good'. Math doesn't apply here, they're different scales and one isn't transferrable to a 100 point scale. Metacritics process is very arbitrary.
Don't want to get crucified in the OT, but I'm guessing this game scored high on fun factor alone. I stopped home on lunch to play some matches, though fun, the graphics are nothing to write home about, especially when your Spartans first walked up begining of the match, like 360 level graphics, (it looked so much better in magazines, )that's not hyperbole either, I looked past it because I had fun (is the ttk lower? Or am I taking advantage of sprinters dropped shields?). Pulled off a ground pound too, warzone when I get home
ethomaz
Banned
80 is "not quite perfect".
You are trying to make 80 looks bad wile it is pretty good... it is the same than 4/5, 8/10, 16/20, 32/40.
Where does 90% fit on the 5 point scale? 89%?
Chezzymann
Member
No it isn't. Different people use scales differently. It's why video game reviews cut off at 75 on metacritic for green while movies cut off at 60. For one person 4/5 is great ans viewed as a 9/10 and 80 is mediocre. For another (like you) both are equal. You're trying to argue all review scales are proportional due to ratios but that is absolutely false. Putting all scales into one doesn't work. Math doesn't apply.
Or better yet, kotakus yes/no system. Is yes a 100 and no a 0?
ethomaz
Banned
Well for me 5 stars if more "classic" and looks better than 10 review scale on the site... there is no difference for me just that it fits better a site layout depending the case.
But I can be wrong too.
Anyway MC has nothing to do about that.
Exploratory
Banned
Stop trolling.
Mr. Giggles
Member
Expected scores!
Have fun xbros!
Have fun xbros!
It's different because the whole purpose of a 10 point scale instead of a 5 point scale is to allow for finer granularity. For when you want to rate something higher than 4, but not as high as 5. A score of 4 on a 5 point scale potentially would have been a 9 (or a 7) on a 10 point scale, but it's no longer a possibility. Similarly Metacritic is aggregating on a 100 point scales because otherwise an 85 score would have to either be an 8 or a 9 on a 10 point scale... or even either a 4 or 5 on a 5 point scale. That would mean anything that isn't a 100 metacritic would then max out at 80 if your logic made sense... which it doesn't.
The scales aren't the same. It's quite simple. On a 10 point scale Forza Horizon 2 and Bloodborne have the same score. That has to do with MC, and it also has to do with individual outlets. Neither is at fault, as they are separate entities, and should review as they please. The only fault is on people with a lack of understanding on how the numbers translate.
ByWatterson
Member
Uh, 4.5/5?
That'd be (at least) a 10 point scale.
I'm going to save this postMetacritic of about 85 is a great score for a First person shooter. When was the last time a FPS got a Meta of 90+ ? Looking in my crystal ball i doubt their will be a FPS in the next 5 years other than Half Life 3 that gets a Metacritic of 90 or over, if it ever came out
I hope im wrong ;-)