Halo 4 gets a 2/10...

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT
 

He's got a point with the mammoth gun thing. I wasn't happy in 2 when Johnson got to drive that big walker thing and I had to fly around in a Banshee. Halo has always been a bit of a cock-tease.

Scoring non-objective reviews seems a bit strange though, score are viewed objectively. Clearly likes the attention it gets him.

RedDeadFred:

Too much like the past Halo games

Not enough like the past Halo games

The guy is trolling.

Either that or he needs help getting dressed or turning on his Xbox.

The AI lifespan thing was established in the books... like 6 years ago... so that point is utterly moot...

Don't feed the troll, he wants attention thats all.

How much you want to bet that people will cite this as an honest review and every reviewer that gave it an 8+ was being paid to do so?

xshadowscreamx:
no game deserves 2/10.. well im sure is a few but not this one.

Why the hell shouldn't bad games get this score? We have spoiled ourselves to the point that people think a 7/10 is somehow a bad score. Even the OP implies the latter in the post. It's fucking ridiculous. Yes, games deserve 2/10's, 1/10's, and 0/10's. We have gotten to the point where 9's and 10's mean nothing because we hand them out so often.

A 5/10 should be considered an "average" game, and "average" seems to be a pretty apt word for Halo 4 from what I've seen so far.

RedDeadFred:
A 2/10 score really stands out on Metacritic so my review will get more traffic (oh wait, that's my assumption not his written reasoning)

Pandabearparade:
A 2/10? Unless it's broken that's just trolling for hits.

HellsingerAngel:
He sounds like a thirteen year-old typing out his frustrations to his buddies on metacritic. Unprofessional doesn't begin to cover how bad the review was.

Radoh:
Well now I've got another sensationalist reviewer that's going to be ignored right alongside Razorfist.

Tdoodle:
Clearly likes the attention it gets him.

Ed130:
The guy is trolling.

Hixy:
Don't feed the troll, he wants attention thats all.

Uh...guys...

This is Tom Chick. The guy is one of the most tenured critics in the industry. He's been around FOREVER. He doesn't need to troll for attention. It's almost like saying Mike Wallace needed to troll for attention so people would know who he is.

Now, I should probably say here that I am not a FAN of Tom Chick. The guy is the Armond White of video game journalism. He's almost aggressively contrarian and is not afraid to ruffle feathers by butchering sacred cows. But holy fuck are ya'll ever hypocrites. We do nothing but whine in here on an hourly basis about the sad state of video game journalism and how they're all in the pockets of the publishers/developers, with manilla envelopes stuffed with bribe money stacked to the ceiling. And here's a guy who will quite cheerfully rip a major release because that's what he thinks of it, and everyone starts moaning that he's "trolling for attention".

Make up your fucking minds. Do you want journalists who tell you what they think, or people who soft peddle everything so they don't accidentally evacuate the 7-10 range and aggravate a legion of sweaty fans? If you don't like his taste in games, don't read his column. When I hear that Tom Chick hated a game I liked, my response is almost always "Okay, but...it's Tom Chick". But stop with the ad hominem attacks because you don't like the score he gave your Halo. The guy has been reviewing games longer than some of you have been alive.

and we're paying attention to him why? He wants metacritic traffic, just like you said.

Considering that Halo games have never had iron-sight aiming, I'm surprised the first reviewer counted that as something detracting from the game. :P

As for the 2nd reviewer, seems like he's being pretty petty. It could be possible that he really, REALLY didn't like the game at all. But it does seem like he's just trying to be an attention whore. But then again, why bother having a scale if you're not going to use it to it's fullest? A review is nothing but some jackass' opinion on something. If said jackass has a low opinion of something, why shouldn't they give it a 2 out of 10?

A couple ZP episodes back, Yahtzee suggested shifting the "out of 10" scale so that it was actually -5 to 5. A 0 rating would be an average game, negative scores reflect a game that's actually broken, positive scores reflect a game that's enjoyable. That is, a 1 rating (which would be equivalent to a 6 on a normal scale) would translate into "playable, but crap" while a -1 might translate into "Interesting, but mechanic x is completely broken." I really think critics should adopt that scale, might clear things up a lot.

BloatedGuppy:

RedDeadFred:
A 2/10 score really stands out on Metacritic so my review will get more traffic (oh wait, that's my assumption not his written reasoning)

Pandabearparade:
A 2/10? Unless it's broken that's just trolling for hits.

HellsingerAngel:
He sounds like a thirteen year-old typing out his frustrations to his buddies on metacritic. Unprofessional doesn't begin to cover how bad the review was.

Radoh:
Well now I've got another sensationalist reviewer that's going to be ignored right alongside Razorfist.

Tdoodle:
Clearly likes the attention it gets him.

Ed130:
The guy is trolling.

Hixy:
Don't feed the troll, he wants attention thats all.

Uh...guys...

This is Tom Chick. The guy is one of the most tenured critics in the industry. He's been around FOREVER. He doesn't need to troll for attention. It's almost like saying Mike Wallace needed to troll for attention so people would know who he is.

Now, I should probably say here that I am not a FAN of Tom Chick. The guy is the Armond White of video game journalism. He's almost aggressively contrarian and is not afraid to ruffle feathers by butchering sacred cows. But holy fuck are ya'll ever hypocrites. We do nothing but whine in here on an hourly basis about the sad state of video game journalism and how they're all in the pockets of the publishers/developers, with manilla envelopes stuffed with bribe money stacked to the ceiling. And here's a guy who will quite cheerfully rip a major release because that's what he thinks of it, and everyone starts moaning that he's "trolling for attention".

Make up your fucking minds. Do you want journalists who tell you what they think, or people who soft peddle everything so they don't accidentally evacuate the 7-10 range and aggravate a legion of sweaty fans? If you don't like his taste in games, don't read his column. When I hear that Tom Chick hated a game I liked, my response is almost always "Okay, but...it's Tom Chick". But stop with the ad hominem attacks because you don't like the score he gave your Halo. The guy has been reviewing games longer than some of you have been alive.

Tenured or not, rating something on pure opinion is unprofessional. I hate fighting and most strategy games. I'm pretty much going to hate these games, but I would give them the benefit and rate them technically.

Baldr:
Tenured or not, rating something on pure opinion is unprofessional. I hate fighting and most strategy games. I'm pretty much going to hate these games, but I would give them the benefit and rate them technically.

It's impossible to have your rating be anything BUT "pure opinion". You can attempt to be objective, but at the end of the day you are giving your opinion. That's what critics and reviewers get paid for. To give their opinion.

You're assuming there was a lack of objectivity because his opinion deviates from yours.

BloatedGuppy:

RedDeadFred:
A 2/10 score really stands out on Metacritic so my review will get more traffic (oh wait, that's my assumption not his written reasoning)

Pandabearparade:
A 2/10? Unless it's broken that's just trolling for hits.

HellsingerAngel:
He sounds like a thirteen year-old typing out his frustrations to his buddies on metacritic. Unprofessional doesn't begin to cover how bad the review was.

Radoh:
Well now I've got another sensationalist reviewer that's going to be ignored right alongside Razorfist.

Tdoodle:
Clearly likes the attention it gets him.

Ed130:
The guy is trolling.

Hixy:
Don't feed the troll, he wants attention thats all.

Uh...guys...

This is Tom Chick. The guy is one of the most tenured critics in the industry. He's been around FOREVER. He doesn't need to troll for attention. It's almost like saying Mike Wallace needed to troll for attention so people would know who he is.

Now, I should probably say here that I am not a FAN of Tom Chick. The guy is the Armond White of video game journalism. He's almost aggressively contrarian and is not afraid to ruffle feathers by butchering sacred cows. But holy fuck are ya'll ever hypocrites. We do nothing but whine in here on an hourly basis about the sad state of video game journalism and how they're all in the pockets of the publishers/developers, with manilla envelopes stuffed with bribe money stacked to the ceiling. And here's a guy who will quite cheerfully rip a major release because that's what he thinks of it, and everyone starts moaning that he's "trolling for attention".

Make up your fucking minds. Do you want journalists who tell you what they think, or people who soft peddle everything so they don't accidentally evacuate the 7-10 range and aggravate a legion of sweaty fans? If you don't like his taste in games, don't read his column. When I hear that Tom Chick hated a game I liked, my response is almost always "Okay, but...it's Tom Chick". But stop with the ad hominem attacks because you don't like the score he gave your Halo. The guy has been reviewing games longer than some of you have been alive.

I see where you are coming from but in my mind (and pretty much everyone elses) a 2/10 means the game is practically unplayable. Now he knew his review would be posted on Metacritic and he probably knew that if he was marking off the same standards as everyone else the game would probably receive at least a 6 (if he's been around as long as you say he would know this) but he decides to go and give it a 2 anyway. Yes I want game journalists to tell me the truth and when the guy blatantly contradicts himself in his review that's when I doubt that he is telling the truth.

Sorry if this paragraph is messed up, I don't have time to check it over cause I gotta go to class.

BloatedGuppy:
Mad

I'm all in favour of someone expressing their honest opinion, but that's clearly not what I was getting at. Scoring something that will be perceived objectively if it's not being reviewed objectively is odd. My issue wasn't that he gave Halo a bad score, it's that he gave it a score at all. And I can honestly think of no decent reason for giving something a score other than to draw attention to it, whether it's a good one or a bad one.

Whether or not he scored low to deliberately attract attention is something else entirely.

BloatedGuppy:
Uh...guys...

This is Tom Chick. The guy is one of the most tenured critics in the industry. He's been around FOREVER. He doesn't need to troll for attention. It's almost like saying Mike Wallace needed to troll for attention so people would know who he is.

Now, I should probably say here that I am not a FAN of Tom Chick. The guy is the Armond White of video game journalism. He's almost aggressively contrarian and is not afraid to ruffle feathers by butchering sacred cows. But holy fuck are ya'll ever hypocrites. We do nothing but whine in here on an hourly basis about the sad state of video game journalism and how they're all in the pockets of the publishers/developers, with manilla envelopes stuffed with bribe money stacked to the ceiling. And here's a guy who will quite cheerfully rip a major release because that's what he thinks of it, and everyone starts moaning that he's "trolling for attention".

Make up your fucking minds. Do you want journalists who tell you what they think, or people who soft peddle everything so they don't accidentally evacuate the 7-10 range and aggravate a legion of sweaty fans? If you don't like his taste in games, don't read his column. When I hear that Tom Chick hated a game I liked, my response is almost always "Okay, but...it's Tom Chick". But stop with the ad hominem attacks because you don't like the score he gave your Halo. The guy has been reviewing games longer than some of you have been alive.

Glad to know someone gets an automatic pass because of his laurels and not his writing or opinion...

I never said he was trolling for attention, I said he made a terrible review and should be called out on it. His writing is sub-par and his opinion is slathered in personal bias which is a bad formula for doing a review on a game. On top of that, it's just and opinion rather than an informed opinion. If I want just and opinion, I could easily get one by going on 4chan. If I want an informed opinion I will go read a review by someone credible, to which you are claiming this reviewer is. Like I had said, he sounds like he knows the culture and the industry, but how he articulates this is ridiculously asinine and sounds like a thirteen year-old whining for no reason other than "I don't like this game".

And that would be the point. I would have no issues with someone bombing Halo 4 if they had reasoning behind it. He doesn't. Instead, the reviewer goes on for two paragraphs like a fuck twat, trying to sound cool and edgy, but comes out like a 9th grader in a creative writing class. This man, no matter what his acclaim is, writes like a child and shouldn't be excused for it! It doesn't matter who it is or what sort of reputation they have, good or bad, if they decide to articulate themselves like a child their review should be treated as such. He's a trash writer, the review deserves to be blamed into oblivion and he shouldn't write another review until he learns how the hell to do his God damn job!

RedDeadFred:
Yes I want game journalists to tell me the truth and when the guy blatantly contradicts himself in his review that's when I doubt that he is telling the truth.

Where do you see a contradiction? He seemed pretty on point about hating it from the beginning to the end of the review.

Tdoodle:
Scoring something that will be perceived objectively if it's not being reviewed objectively is odd.

Again, I'm not sure where this perception is coming from that he's not being objective.

From an interview he did a while back with Rock Paper Shotgun about his infamous Deus Ex review:

It's sort of cute. We all have strong opinions about different things, and I'm lucky enough that some of those make an impression on people, for better or worse. But I do wish the reaction was to wonder *why* I didn't like Deus Ex. Instead, it's often just shorthand to dismiss something else I've written. "Oh, he didn't like Mass Effect 2? Well, he didn't like Deus Ex either!" That's just lazy and it ultimately hurts the level of discourse when we talk about videogames.

For instance, if I hear that someone doesn't like Casablanca or Jaws or Moon, I want to know *why* he didn't like it. Those are interesting conversations and at their best, we each learn something, even if it's just about each other. But unfortunately, those are conversations missing in the internet videogame culture. People tend to judge opinions based not on their insight, but on whether they agree with that opinion. A good review isn't a good review. It's a review you agree with.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/06/29/tom-chick-the-man-who-hated-deus-ex/

Again, I'm a little disturbed by the automatic perception that a score is "not objective" if it falls outside the 7-10 range.

HellsingerAngel:
Instead, the reviewer goes on for two paragraphs like a fuck twat, trying to sound cool and edgy...

Is this irony?

I'm fairly certain this is irony.

Eddie the head:

TakeshiLive:
Can you give an example of a game this critic rates highly? It might show something about their standards and expectations

Well he has a top 10 games of 2012 so far list. It was made in July but, if that's what your looking for.

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/07/03/the-best-games-of-2012-so-far/

In any case, that's a strange list he's got which in my opinion means that he's got some weird standards

Ok what? To deserve a 2/10 the game would have to be pretty broken and borderline unplayable.

Didn't click the link because that's what he wants. A review attached to a score this low, for a game for which no one else has sounded any alarms, cannot be taken seriously and does not even merit attention. Yes, you may hold an opinion which differs from the rest of the pack. No you shouldn't pull stunts like this for traffic.

If people actually read the whole review he actually states a lot that he doesn't like about the game. Not just the points that people seem to be focusing on.

- Features missing
- lack of replayablity in single player
- Multiplayer becoming more like a certain other franchise
- New weapons are just copy and pasted with re-skins
- Didn't like the aesthetics
- Didn't like or enjoy the story
- New enemies are re-skins with slightly new abilities

Sounds to me like he really didn't enjoy the game so a 1 star review seems fine to me. I don't agree with him personally but its his opinion. There are plenty of games I don't like and would probably only give 1 star *cough* skyrim *cough*

I think your reviews of his review seem a bit unfair ;)

Palademon:
So...if it's "half the game it should be"...then at it's best it should be 4/10?

Q: Why did you give Journey a 40%?

A: I didn't. Quarter to Three uses a five star scale. One of the reasons I avoid percentage ratings is that too many people associate it with grade school, where anything below a 70% is a failing grade. Any scale where only the top third of the ratings is considered acceptable is a broken scale. Which is fine for children doing multiple choice questions about The Scarlet Letter, isosceles triangles, or the capital of France. But adults evaluating entertainment should be afforded the full range of any ratings scale.

I don't know what to take from this. Having a scale is fine, but having a game you think is mediocre be THE LOWEST RATING YOU HAVE is ridiculous. So a bad game is what? Negative stars? He only works on five star system.

5 Star System:

1 Star - Terrible.
2 Star - Mediocre.
3 Star - Average.
4 Star - Good.
5 Star - Great.

Toppa Tengen Hidden Ultra Star Unicorn Gurren Attack Mark 2 Lagann: Perfect.

That is how a 5 Star System should be.

Oh well, Stupid reviews are stupid.

BloatedGuppy:

RedDeadFred:
A 2/10 score really stands out on Metacritic so my review will get more traffic (oh wait, that's my assumption not his written reasoning)

Pandabearparade:
A 2/10? Unless it's broken that's just trolling for hits.

HellsingerAngel:
He sounds like a thirteen year-old typing out his frustrations to his buddies on metacritic. Unprofessional doesn't begin to cover how bad the review was.

Radoh:
Well now I've got another sensationalist reviewer that's going to be ignored right alongside Razorfist.

Tdoodle:
Clearly likes the attention it gets him.

Ed130:
The guy is trolling.

Hixy:
Don't feed the troll, he wants attention thats all.

Uh...guys...

This is Tom Chick. The guy is one of the most tenured critics in the industry. He's been around FOREVER. He doesn't need to troll for attention. It's almost like saying Mike Wallace needed to troll for attention so people would know who he is.

Now, I should probably say here that I am not a FAN of Tom Chick. The guy is the Armond White of video game journalism. He's almost aggressively contrarian and is not afraid to ruffle feathers by butchering sacred cows. But holy fuck are ya'll ever hypocrites. We do nothing but whine in here on an hourly basis about the sad state of video game journalism and how they're all in the pockets of the publishers/developers, with manilla envelopes stuffed with bribe money stacked to the ceiling. And here's a guy who will quite cheerfully rip a major release because that's what he thinks of it, and everyone starts moaning that he's "trolling for attention".

Make up your fucking minds. Do you want journalists who tell you what they think, or people who soft peddle everything so they don't accidentally evacuate the 7-10 range and aggravate a legion of sweaty fans? If you don't like his taste in games, don't read his column. When I hear that Tom Chick hated a game I liked, my response is almost always "Okay, but...it's Tom Chick". But stop with the ad hominem attacks because you don't like the score he gave your Halo. The guy has been reviewing games longer than some of you have been alive.

Ok I take your point and for the record I am NOT a Halo fan boy. You are right video game journalism is spotty when we have Gamespot and god help me, IGN still peddling their crap. I just think that he gave it 2/10 to annoy people because although I havent played it, I would bet money its better than that. The visuals are outstanding from what I have seen and the gameplay looks fairly solid (we know Halo does good enemy AI). They are providing, I would argue, more for your money than what you usually get with a AAA so I just don't see how you give that 2/10 even if you do hate Halo. I admit I had never heard of this guy before and maybe he is extreme but I just think that score is low because he feels like it not because the game deserves it.

This is part of the reason I lost my taste for Halo.

People hating on it all the time.

Fans get worked up over review scores because they think it's the second coming of Christ and deserves to be revered as such.

P.S I agree with this guy

BloatedGuppy:
Again, I'm a little disturbed by the automatic perception that a score is "not objective" if it falls outside the 7-10 range.

Eddie the head:

TakeshiLive:
Can you give an example of a game this critic rates highly? It might show something about their standards and expectations

Well he has a top 10 games of 2012 so far list. It was made in July but, if that's what your looking for.

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/07/03/the-best-games-of-2012-so-far/

Wow that guy has a shitty top 10 list.

I can safely write him off as a retard who somehow figured out how to use the internet.

alphamalet:
Why the hell shouldn't bad games get this score? We have spoiled ourselves to the point that people think a 7/10 is somehow a bad score. Even the OP implies the latter in the post. It's fucking ridiculous. Yes, games deserve 2/10's, 1/10's, and 0/10's. We have gotten to the point where 9's and 10's mean nothing because we hand them out so often.

A 5/10 should be considered an "average" game, and "average" seems to be a pretty apt word for Halo 4 from what I've seen so far.

I agree; a game that does nothing to innovate, expand, refine, or entice gives no reason for anyone to play it. A 2/10 reflects that perfectly. From the little I've seen of Halo 4, I cannot think of one aspect of it I would not find boring or ponderous.

As someone who actively dislikes Halo, and as someone who realizes that this review means nothing even in the grand scheme of Halo reviews... meh.

I agree with the Scale issue - if you can't use the whole scale, then why the hell have it? - but this guy does sound like a bit of a dick.

Although, he gets props for putting Xenoblade as his top game of the year. Fuck yeah!

I hate Halo and even I'd give it at least a four.

That seems like a severe case of Anita Sarkeesian Syndrome, where you deliberately upset a certain group of people to get noticed. Not saying it doesn't work or it's wrong, but it's a pretty blatant example of it.

FelixG:
Wow that guy has a shitty top 10 list.

I can safely write him off as a retard who somehow figured out how to use the internet.

That's what I like to do with opinions that do not align with mine as well. That way none of my preconceptions are ever challenged, and I can remain safely cocooned in the warm environs of my own bias.

ParanoidEngineer:
...deliberately upset a certain group of people...

You don't need to be deliberate to upset "gamers". Say a bad word about their favorite game and they melt down faster than Chernobyl.

It's a common phenomenon with people who are insecure about their opinions. They pitch a fit when they get challenged.

BloatedGuppy:
Again, I'm not sure where this perception is coming from that he's not being objective.

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/03/24/the-official-journey-review-faq/

Saw that his Journey review had been mentioned so figured I'd have a quick look at that, but stumbled on this first. It's the 5th question, in his own words being objective "is not how I write". Again, I'm all in favour of this - I actually prefer it - but not being objective and then giving it a score that will be viewed objectively by does not make sense.

Tdoodle:
Saw that his Journey review had been mentioned so figured I'd have a quick look at that, but stumbled on this first. It's the 5th question, in his own words being objective "is not how I write". Again, I'm all in favour of this - I actually prefer it - but not being objective and then giving it a score that will be viewed objectively by does not make sense.

Well, fair enough. I'm not about the argue with his own perspective on his own reviews. Frankly, I don't want to end up in a situation where I'm aggressively going to bat for Tom fucking Chick, I've been irritated at him for a decade now.

I just HATE blind confirmation bias. "Oh this review conforms with my expectations? Good review! Oh this review is too high? BOUGHT AND PAID FOR? Oh this review is too low? TROLLING FOR ATTENTION!".

It's like there's an entire world full of people out there who literally cannot fathom the existence of opinions different than their own that aren't inspired by malice or stupidity.

BloatedGuppy:

FelixG:
Wow that guy has a shitty top 10 list.

I can safely write him off as a retard who somehow figured out how to use the internet.

That's what I like to do with opinions that do not align with mine as well. That way none of my preconceptions are ever challenged, and I can remain safely cocooned in the warm environs of my own bias.

Aww isnt that cute, you think you have an idea of what you are talking about!

I don't have a problem with views different than mine, hell I enjoy debates with people with differing philosophies on various subjects, and have no problem with my preconceptions being challenged, I enjoy when I am proven wrong and learn something as much as I enjoy when I can educate another.

But keep on thinking its bias cause my poor world view cant handle a 2/10 to a game which has what? one negative review on metacritic? Instead of just contempt for an idiot which is what it is.

Guys, it's Tom fucking Chi-

Wait, never mind, this is already being covered.

Additionally, you should never take metacritic scores seriously, partly because hey, it's fucking metacritic, and partly because they actually modify the scores in order to put them in line with their out of 100 system.

1/5 stars does not equal 2/10, and 2/10 does not necessarily equal 20/100

FelixG:
Aww isnt that cute, you think you have an idea of what you are talking about!

Your sneering, defensive response is supposed to convince me I don't know what I'm talking about?

FelixG:
I don't have a problem with views different than mine, hell I enjoy debates with people with differing philosophies on various subjects, and have no problem with my preconceptions being challenged, I enjoy when I am proven wrong and learn something as much as I enjoy when I can educate another.

But keep on thinking its bias cause my poor world view cant handle a 2/10 to a game which has what? one negative review on metacritic? Instead of just contempt for an idiot which is what it is.

Well, I don't know about you, but I often don't instantly dismiss people as "retards" because their list of favorite games does not align with mine.

So, if it's all the same to you, I will keep on thinking it's bias, because it clearly is. I can add "contempt for total strangers based on their video game preferences" as well I guess. Thanks for that clarification!

Other games this guy has given 2/10 to:
Lollipop Chainsaw
Syndicate
From Dust
Resident Evil 6

Star ratings are irritating.

Some people think it's trendy to make a big deal out of bashing popular games. It's like that one asshole who keeps telling everyone all about how he doesn't watch TV.

BloatedGuppy:

FelixG:
Aww isnt that cute, you think you have an idea of what you are talking about!

Your sneering, defensive response is supposed to convince me I don't know what I'm talking about?

No its supposed to express my contempt, though you are partially correct, I have contempt for a great many strangers in general, not just based on videogame choices :P

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked