Support NeoGAF

[Smokey]

:lol

You're one of the reasons video game journalism is terrible.

Do you freelance for IGN by chance?

cold
blooded

 

[Gui_PT]

That time of the month at home, Shogun?

 

[Princess Carl]

Really dude? Really?

That's not even the same issue. I'm done pandering to you.

And stop flooding the thread with your argument against gaming journalism. I think we're done with that too.

 

[Brolic Gaoler]

That time of the month at home, Shogun?

Nah, just hit a nerve is all.

Like I said, I'm really passionate about games, and everything game related.

And stop flooding the thread with your argument against gaming journalism. I think we're done with that too.

Simply was addressing posts after my initial post.

That said, it's done now anyway, and was done when Flynn and I finished the conversation.

 

[DancingJesus]

One thing that has bothered me about some of the reviews particularly GiantBomb's, is that his main complaint of the game is that it is essentially more Halo, yet he gives Modern Warfare 2 (A game that is next to identical to the first, but somehow slightly worse) a higher score. Seems slightly hypocritical, especially considering Reach added and changed much more...

If you are going to knock a game for being more of the same, do it across the board.

 

[BrLvgThrChmstry]

Honestly, I think you should read the reviews again. Many of the more respected ones are stating that the character development and feel of the campaign is very very good.

If you're only looking to play the story once, finish it, and never go back to try something different (skulls, easter egg hunting, co op) then i think it might be a rental for you.

However, if you enjoy the idea of firefight (horde mode in gears) with very deep custimization and the chance to play it online if you feel like it, then I would suggest a purchase. There is a large replay value outside of Multiplayer if you enjoy the AI.

Think about, don't purchase unless you can trust to get your money's worth.

I'm going to be frank, Any thoughts on the quality of the character development is fairly subjectively...obviously. From my standpoint, as a person who hasn't explored other media/mediums relating to Halo, I disagree with this claim. Character development should "transcend" cutscenes and remain consistently throughout the experience. Not just blurting out one liners and enemy positions during gameplay. I think some reviews do have hints of hyperbole statements here and there...

And yes, the entire campaign has been spoiled for me. I've watched campaign in it's entirety over the course of a few days (after the leak). Self inflicted.

While I will undeniably agree Reach is the pinnacle of series in terms of game designAnd pacing, it's narrative definitely caters to a certain kind of "fan" of the series, but not entirely. My thoughts could be off, maybe if I experience myself, I'll come to a definite conclusion.

 

[Massa]

Gamespot - or how we wait for other reviews to decide on the score.

More like "how we actually play all modes of a game in a real world scenario before reviewing it". For a recent example, they have one of the few reviews that acknowledge the lag problems with Kane & Lynch 2's multiplayer.

Of course, metacritic junkies don't like their approach and want to do the math on a game's score as soon as the embargo is up.

 

[Princess Carl]

One thing that has bothered me about some of the reviews particularly GiantBomb's, is that his main complaint of the game is that it is essentially more Halo, yet he gives Modern Warfare 2 (A game that is next to identical to the first, but somehow slightly worse) a higher score. Seems slightly hypocritical, especially considering Reach added and changed much more...

Yea, you see that a lot now.

A reason to give one game a lower score and negative aspect will either be used to convey the opposite or not mention it at all.

It's more personal bias than anything else unfortunately.

 

[Lakitu]

One thing that has bothered me about some of the reviews particularly GiantBomb's, is that his main complaint of the game is that it is essentially more Halo, yet he gives Modern Warfare 2 (A game that is next to identical to the first, but somehow slightly worse) a higher score. Seems slightly hypocritical, especially considering Reach added and changed much more...

Good spot. I thought the review was fine, but you're spot on there.

 

[LCfiner]

One thing that has bothered me about some of the reviews particularly GiantBomb's, is that his main complaint of the game is that it is essentially more Halo, yet he gives Modern Warfare 2 (A game that is next to identical to the first, but somehow slightly worse) a higher score. Seems slightly hypocritical, especially considering Reach added and changed much more...

I thought about this but I don’t think it’s hypocritical at all. Jeff has said many, many times that he much prefers the faster paced combat of the CoD games and so he gave MW2 five stars based almost solely on the MP combat plus the level-up/ perk system.

note how he uses sprint almost exclusively as the halo reach armour ability. guy wants to MOVE

the dude just prefers the cod style of play so it’s easier for him to give that 5 stars and halo 4 stars.

myself, I’m the exact opposite opinion. I hate the one or two hit kills of CoD and the shooting gallery style SP so I’d never bother giving those games anything more than 3 stars unless they changed the gameplay entirely (something they’d be crazy to do seeing how popular it is)

 

[bhlaab]

http://www.ugo.com/games/halo-reach-review

A+
You will this like if.. you have ever enjoyed a shooter.
You won't like this if.. you quite simply refuse to give the franchise a chance.

Wow, thanks for letting me know that it is literally impossible to not enjoy this game. Good job games journalism.

Turns out these guys have been reviewing games since the mid-1990s:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbhRVZRQZNA#t=2m15s

 

[Lakitu]

I thought about this but I don’t think it’s hypocritical at all. Jeff has said many, many times that he much prefers the faster paced combat of the CoD games and so he gave MW2 five stars based almost solely on the MP combat plus the level-up/ perk system.

note how he uses sprint almost exclusively as the halo reach armour ability. guy wants to MOVE

the dude just prefers the cod style of play so it’s easier for him to give that 5 stars and halo 4 stars.

myself, I’m the exact opposite opinion. I hate the one or two hit kills of CoD and the shooting gallery style SP so I’d never bother giving those games anything more than 3 stars unless they changed the gameplay entirely (something they’d be crazy to do seeing how popular it is)

Valid point. I agree... I don't enjoy COD's fast-paced compared to Halo's. I didn't even care about their being a sprint ability. I haven't played Modern Warfare 2 online since I bought it, it bored me that much. I had a look at some videos a few weeks ago and I couldn't stand the movement speed.

 

[DancingJesus]

I thought about this but I don’t think it’s hypocritical at all. Jeff has said many, many times that he much prefers the faster paced combat of the CoD games and so he gave MW2 five stars based almost solely on the MP combat plus the level-up/ perk system.

note how he uses sprint almost exclusively as the halo reach armour ability. guy wants to MOVE

the dude just prefers the cod style of play so it’s easier for him to give that 5 stars and halo 4 stars.

myself, I’m the exact opposite opinion. I hate the one or two hit kills of CoD and the shooting gallery style SP so I’d never bother giving those games anything more than 3 stars unless they changed the gameplay entirely (something they’d be crazy to do seeing how popular it is)

I guess that's where we disagree with how to review a game. You shouldn't be writing a review for yourself, but rather for an audience - that way no personal bias is infused. Say for example you don't particularly enjoy Madden or any sports game for that matter; you can still recognize that it is the best of its class in its genre. You can't section out a Madden game and say, well it's only three stars because only sports fans like it.

 

[mjc]

I thought about this but I don’t think it’s hypocritical at all. Jeff has said many, many times that he much prefers the faster paced combat of the CoD games and so he gave MW2 five stars based almost solely on the MP combat plus the level-up/ perk system.

note how he uses sprint almost exclusively as the halo reach armour ability. guy wants to MOVE

the dude just prefers the cod style of play so it’s easier for him to give that 5 stars and halo 4 stars.

myself, I’m the exact opposite opinion. I hate the one or two hit kills of CoD and the shooting gallery style SP so I’d never bother giving those games anything more than 3 stars unless they changed the gameplay entirely (something they’d be crazy to do seeing how popular it is)

He's free to give the games the scores he wants, as its his review and opinion, but he should make it known in the review that the style of the game isn't to his liking.

 

[Prine]

Seems like people were hoping for a different result. Thread is full of butt hurt, for the wrong reasons.

Makes the inevitable success of Halo Reach even more sweeter.

 

[Requeim]

I guess that's where we disagree with how to review a game. You shouldn't be writing a review for yourself, but rather for an audience - that way no personal bias is infused.

lol what

 

[Gigglepoo]

Where's the Gamespot review? Do they still sit on their reviews for big games to try and get more limelight?

GameSpot doesn't attend review events and we didn't get the game for review until late last week. It'll go up when we get enough time with it.

 

[DancingJesus]

lol what

Read the rest of the paragraph, it makes sense in the context of the rest of my point.

 

[Requeim]

Read the rest of the paragraph, it makes sense in the context of the rest of my point.

no it doesn't, a review without personal bias doesn't exist, that is unless you have a robot reviewing games somewhere

 

[Lakitu]

no it doesn't, a review without personal bias doesn't exist, that is unless you have a robot reviewing games somewhere

What's wrong with being a robot?

 

[DancingJesus]

no it doesn't, a review without personal bias doesn't exist, that is unless you have a robot reviewing games somewhere

I'm not saying it should be entirely eliminated, of course not. Just put in perspective.

A critic should go into each game with a blank slate and no personal biases prior to the review.

 

[LCfiner]

I guess that's where we disagree with how to review a game. You shouldn't be writing a review for yourself, but rather for an audience - that way no personal bias is infused. Say for example you don't particularly enjoy Madden or any sports game for that matter; you can still recognize that it is the best of its class in its genre. You can't section out a Madden game and say, well it's only a three stars because only sports fans like it.

this is when we get shit like Game Informer giving super paper mario a 6 cuz they think their audience would find it too kiddy.

the only review I am interested in reading is one where the reviewer is giving their personal opinion of the game (or, hell, movie or book) in question. If you know what the person likes and dislikes, then you know what to expect from the review.


trying to review a game based about what you think other people will like about a game is a fool’s errand and will, ultimately, please no one.

 

[Requeim]

this is when we get shit like Game Informer giving super paper mario a 6 cuz they think their audience would find it too kiddy.

the only review I am interested in reading is one where the reviewer is giving their personal opinion of the game (or, hell, movie or book) in question. If you know what the person likes and dislikes, then you know what to expect from the review.


trying to review a game based about what you think other people will like about a game is a fool’s errand and will, ultimately, please no one.

QFT


edit: also, if you go into each review with a blank slate, every game would be the best game ever, since you'd have nothing to compare it to

 

[derFeef]

More like "how we actually play all modes of a game in a real world scenario before reviewing it". For a recent example, they have one of the few reviews that acknowledge the lag problems with Kane & Lynch 2's multiplayer.

Of course, metacritic junkies don't like their approach and want to do the math on a game's score as soon as the embargo is up.

Fair enough, if that´s true.

GameSpot doesn't attend review events and we didn't get the game for review until late last week. It'll go up when we get enough time with it.

Kudos, then!

 

[DancingJesus]

this is when we get shit like Game Informer giving super paper mario a 6 cuz they think their audience would find it too kiddy.

the only review I am interested in reading is one where the reviewer is giving their personal opinion of the game (or, hell, movie or book) in question. If you know what the person likes and dislikes, then you know what to expect from the review.


trying to review a game based about what you think other people will like about a game is a fool’s errand and will, ultimately, please no one.

Fair enough, but it should be let known that you have a personal opinion that prefers a certain style of game. I guess in a perfect society, that's how it should work, but in reality, it can lead to further errors.

My point still stands that he's hypocritical for holding one game to one standard but another to a different.

 

[Shurs]

A critic should go into each game with a blank slate and no personal biases prior to the review.

Impossible. An author's experiences inform their writing.

 

[MMaRsu]

GameSpot doesn't attend review events and we didn't get the game for review until late last week. It'll go up when we get enough time with it.

Good man. That's how reviews are done. Get enough alone time with the complete package, and don't rush through the campaign on easy within 6 hours in some sweaty hotel room.

I heard that Bungie held a review 'event' for dutch reviewers, in which they were forced to play the game on easy. How can you even review that?

 

[GarthVaderUK]

That's a pretty hot looking set of reviews right there. DEAR GODS LET THIS GAME ARRIVE HERE TOMORROW!

 

[LCfiner]

Fair enough, but it should be let known that you have a personal opinion that prefers a certain style of game. I guess in a perfect society, that's how it should work, but in reality, it can lead to further errors.

My point still stands that he's hypocritical for holding one game to one standard but another to a different.

Nope, he’s still holding them to a single standard: his enjoyment of the game.

Nothing hypocritical there.

 

[MNC]

You know, I slowly started liking Halo again after 3, because this didn't have such an abomination of a marketing campaign with mountain dew fuckups and whatnot. Clean and simple and a "fresh" halo start. The only game that makes me want to have a 360.

 

[Red]

I guess that's where we disagree with how to review a game. You shouldn't be writing a review for yourself, but rather for an audience - that way no personal bias is infused. Say for example you don't particularly enjoy Madden or any sports game for that matter; you can still recognize that it is the best of its class in its genre. You can't section out a Madden game and say, well it's only three stars because only sports fans like it.

It is impossible to be purely objective. It is literally impossible.

 

[BrLvgThrChmstry]

I guess that's where we disagree with how to review a game. You shouldn't be writing a review for yourself, but rather for an audience - that way no personal bias is infused. Say for example you don't particularly enjoy Madden or any sports game for that matter; you can still recognize that it is the best of its class in its genre. You can't section out a Madden game and say, well it's only a three stars because only sports fans like it.

But who then would speak to the audience who isn't fully invested in the series, who doesn't or isn't inclined to say Halo is the best console shooter ever? Believe it or not, there is more than 'one' audience out there, Jeff very well may share the same perspective as a lot if people on GAF who aren't fans of the series. Should he not review "Reach" simply because he prefers a certain kind of pacing or game mechanic? He is providing insight for those on the fence, the person who doesn't find much of the game appealing. Could be the aesthetics, theme, game mechanics, whatever. And that is one reason I appreciate his review because it acknowledges another portion of the audience that does exist.

And like someone said earlier, I find the problems with gaming "journalist" stem from the audience.

 

[MarshMellow96]

Fair enough, but it should be let known that you have a personal opinion that prefers a certain style of game....

My point still stands that he's hypocritical for holding one game to one standard but another to a different.

It's hard to do that without making your review irrelevant. It's like a giant disclaimer saying 'I don't like this kind of game but..' at the start of the review. Readers will just disregard the rest.

Yes, is being hypocritical - but he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't at the end of the day.

 

[Gigglepoo]

Good man. That's how reviews are done. Get enough alone time with the complete package, and don't rush through the campaign on easy within 6 hours in some sweaty hotel room.

Easy? Halo is supposed to be played on Heroic!

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

More like "how we actually play all modes of a game in a real world scenario before reviewing it". For a recent example, they have one of the few reviews that acknowledge the lag problems with Kane & Lynch 2's multiplayer.

Of course, metacritic junkies don't like their approach and want to do the math on a game's score as soon as the embargo is up.

Well said. I don't particularly like all of their reviewers, but the site has always been good about putting a lot of effort in to things such as reviews and news.

They're one of few gaming websites that will go to a publisher or whatever for comment BEFORE posting a story, for example.

 

[DancingJesus]

Regardless, this discussion proves why scoring systems are flawed. Bring on more articles like Shack New's and Arstechnica.

It's funny, I think Starcraft II faced the same challenges Reach did, in that it was a refinement and elaboration on a proven forumla. The lower reviews for that game criticized it for similar aspects. I don't mind this at all, as long as this is consistent throughout the rest of the reviews on the publication's site.

The take away message though, is that no one should be upset or disappointed with what Reach has received thus far. I'll take thirteen perfect scores any day of the week.

It's hard to do that without making your review irrelevant. It's like a giant disclaimer saying 'I don't like this kind of game but..' at the start of the review. Readers will just disregard the rest.

Yes, is being hypocritical - but he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't at the end of the day.

Well don't review it then. Or have someone else on the team do it instead. This happens for different play style games. Be it a RTS, Fighting or Sports game.

But who then would speak to the audience who isn't fully invested in the series, who doesn't or isn't inclined to say Halo is the best console shooter ever? Believe it or not, there is more than 'one' audience out there, Jeff very well may share the same perspective as a lot if people on GAF who aren't fans of the series. Should he not review "Reach" simply because he prefers a certain kind of pacing or game mechanic? He is providing insight for those on the fence, the person who doesn't find much of the game appealing. Could be the aesthetics, theme, game mechanics, whatever. And that is one reason I appreciate his review because it acknowledges another portion of the audience that does exist.

And like someone said earlier, I find the problems with gaming "journalist" stem from the audience.

Solid point. But I still think it should be clearly stated that he is part of this contingent.

Nope, he’s still holding them to a single standard: his enjoyment of the game.

Nothing hypocritical there.

That isn't why he is hypocritical, it's that he is criticizing the game for being overly familiar in Halo, yet he doesn't do the same in the recent Modern Warfare (when that game was largely unchanged).

 

[MMaRsu]

Easy? Halo is supposed to be played on Heroic!

Well that's what I told the people at the staff from that particular site. But he stated that if they would have played it on Heroic they wouldn't have been able to complete it and therefore not been able to write a review.

They only reviewed the campaign though, they will put up a review of the MP and FF later.

 

[Requeim]

That isn't why he is hypocritical, it's that he is criticizing the game for being overly familiar in Halo, yet he doesn't do the same in the recent Modern Warfare (when that game was largely unchanged).

fucking hell, give it up already. How many halo games vs how many modern warfare games?

also, it's pretty amazing how little halo actually has changed over the years (haven't played reach though)

 

[BrLvgThrChmstry]

Regardless, this discussion proves why scoring systems are flawed. Bring on more articles like Shack New's and Arstechnica.

It's funny, I think Starcraft II faced the same challenges Reach did, in that it was a refinement and elaboration on a proven forumla. The lower reviews for that game criticized it for similar aspects. I don't mind this at all, as long as this is consistent throughout the rest of the reviews on the publication's site.

The take away message though, is that no one should be upset or disappointed with what Reach has received thus far. I'll take thirteen perfect scores any day of the week.




Well don't review it then. Or have someone else on the team do it instead. This happens for different play style games. Be it a RTS, Fighting or Sports game.

Edit:Nevermind.

 

[Triphos]

One thing that has bothered me about some of the reviews particularly GiantBomb's, is that his main complaint of the game is that it is essentially more Halo, yet he gives Modern Warfare 2 (A game that is next to identical to the first, but somehow slightly worse) a higher score. Seems slightly hypocritical, especially considering Reach added and changed much more...

If you are going to knock a game for being more of the same, do it across the board.

Oh no, a game that literally nobody but fanboys even cares about the review scores for is getting a 4 instead of a 5, however will I justify my purchase now

 

[DancingJesus]

I think it's funny how you are commenting on the level of "bias" represented in some of the reviews, yet will fail to acknowledge any review not claiming "Perfection". You, yourself are showing bias towards any reviews not catering to your "feelings" on Reach.

Who said I didn't acknowledge the other reviews? What are you talking about. I was just saying I was pleased to see it earn high marks from some of the publications. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

fucking hell, give it up already. How many halo games vs how many modern warfare games?

also, it's pretty amazing how little halo actually has changed over the years (haven't played reach though)

It's called Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2. There were five previous iterations before that.

Oh no, a game that literally nobody but fanboys even cares about the review scores for is getting a 4 instead of a 5, however will I justify my purchase now

Why say something this stupid? The Halo franchise extends far beyond the typical fanbase, (See sales). I also never said that I wasn't going to buy the game because of this review, I was commenting on a review in a review thread. Imagine that.

 

[bhlaab]

That isn't why he is hypocritical, it's that he is criticizing the game for being overly familiar in Halo, yet he doesn't do the same in the recent Modern Warfare (when that game was largely unchanged).

Modern Warfare 2 was SO changed. They took out leaning, dedicated servers, fov control...

Plus they replaced the endless enemy spawn points in the campaign with endless grenade spam.

10/10

 

[MarshMellow96]

Well don't review it then. Or have someone else on the team do it instead. This happens for different play style games. Be it a RTS, Fighting or Sports game.

You're not wrong. But at the same time a reader could denounce a reviewer for being biased towards a certain genre. A reviewer who is known for liking shooters might have his opinion lessened by that very fact. They've got what, five guys on Giant Bomb? Maybe they should start doing second opinions or something. More individual thoughts on a game can only be a good thing

Of course, you already know this. We're done for and no one should ever review a game ever again.

That isn't why he is hypocritical, it's that he is criticizing the game for being overly familiar in Halo, yet he doesn't do the same in the recent Modern Warfare (when that game was largely unchanged).

Exactly. MW2 is more or less MW, yet it's super amazingly better. Reach arguably shakes things up more but is apparently too much like Halo 3.

 

[RefigeKru]

That isn't why he is hypocritical, it's that he is criticizing the game for being overly familiar in Halo, yet he doesn't do the same in the recent Modern Warfare (when that game was largely unchanged).

Could be that a lot of the weapons, enemy types, vehicles, etc are the same?

A lot changes between the CoD games, even if it's only cosmetic.

 

[Triphos]

Why say something this stupid? The Halo franchise extends far beyond the typical fanbase, (See sales). I also never said that I wasn't going to buy the game because of this review, I was commenting on a review in a review thread. Imagine that.

Because you're complaining really, really hard about a single review that gives well-laid out and persuasive reasons for giving a game a near perfect score instead of a perfect one.

 

[DancingJesus]

Could be that a lot of the weapons, enemy types, vehicles, etc are the same?

A lot changes between the CoD games, even if it's only cosmetic.

I guess so.

But I think: Firefight Matchmaking, Campaign Matchmaking, Everything Customizable in Firefight, Armor Unlocks/Credit System, Forge World, and a plethora of new gametypes including Invasion, do a nice job of spicing things up. As far as gameplay goes, armor abilities, bloom on guns, and assassinations considerably change the ebb and flow of the game.

Hell, if you went into the official Beta thread here, you'd see people complaining that it was too different from Halo 3. Those guys are crazy though.

Because you're complaining really, really hard about a single review that gives well-laid out and persuasive reasons for giving a game a near perfect score instead of a perfect one.

I'm just responding to the comments and explaining my rational for my point since it wasn't clearly stated originally. As for the particular reasons why, I didn't see any other than a small mention of a slight frame-rate issue and that it is largely still "Halo" (this being the main complaint).

 

[BrLvgThrChmstry]

Who said I didn't acknowledge the other reviews? What are you talking about. I was just saying I was pleased to see it earn high marks from some of the publications. Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

You're very welcome, but the reason I bolded that statement was to prove a point...you simply like favorable reviews. That's it.

...

Friggin' iPhone won't stop correcting me, can't we all get along?

 

[bhlaab]

Exactly. MW2 is more or less MW, yet it's super amazingly better. Reach arguably shakes things up more but is apparently too much like Halo 3.

So wait, you're saying that in the grand scheme of things, certain games get an unfair advantage over others when it comes to reviews simply because of what they are and not because of their actual merits?

 

[see5harp]

You don't think that journalist gets reprimanded? You don't think if it happens too often they don't get shit canned?

This isn't a small error. It's a factual error in the comparison of two games stating that a mechanic exists in both, that doesn't.

Not only does it make him look bad, but it makes his publisher/editor look bad.

It makes it look like he has no idea what the hell he is talking about and lends him zero credibility.

It's this exact reason that I no longer go to IGN for reviews anymore. Nearly every review/preview from them has these errors, yet nothing ever happens to the "journalists." One of the biggest offenders is Hilary, and he's the god damn EIC.

The simple fact is that video game journalism gets away with it because it isn't taken seriously and it's because of crap like this it won't ever be taken seriously.

I think you are probably one of the reasons why gaming will never be taken seriously. Lighten up.

 

[bhlaab]

I think you are probably one of the reasons why gaming will never be taken seriously. Lighten up.

Yeah, because the amateurish enthusiast press (emphasis on the word enthusiast) has nothing to do with how seriously games are taken.