Halo 4 gets a 2/10...

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

ZehMadScientist:
Reminds me of the Last Airbender movie. Those who've seen the original animation thought it sucked arse. Those who haven't thought it was okay (from what I hear around me, anyway >.>)

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/last_airbender/

Was one of the most universally reviled films in recent memory. It's in Ecks vs Sever territory.

ResonanceGames:
Tom Chick uses the 1-10 scale. If you are a fan of the 7-10 scale, please stick to IGN.

He hated the game, he scored it accordingly, he said what he didn't like about it. G'night folks! We're done here.

I'll just set this right here: http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/02/12/action-girlz-racing-review

BTW, I'm not actually a fan of IGN. They are pretty inconsistent with their review quality and depth but you were practically asking for me to do a quick Google search of this.

Peh. His poor attempt at shock and trolling doesn't phase me. I'm not walking into Halo 4 expecting a masterpiece, but I'll burn my Halo books and sell all my Halo swag if it's a 2/10. Nearly did that with Assassin's Creed Revelations, which I would have given it a 6/10.

I don't care what this one dude says. I'm still getting this game and going to enjoy it.

4RM3D:
Oh gee, 1 reviewer gives a game a bad score. The end of the world is near!

I don't look at game reviews anymore; I haven't for years. Because the reviewers can not be trusted. There are mostly unprofessional, biased and sometimes even corrupt. There are a few exceptions, mostly the independent reviewers, e.g. hobbyist.

I can definitely relate. I tend to very casually read professional reviews, pay some attention to hobbyist blogs, and then wait until a Let's Play or two hits the Tube. Once I can see someone playing, I can have a reasonably correct assumption of what this game will feel like to me.

Either that, or I wait for one of my buds to play it, I want for his verdict and then make my decision based on that.

Is this gonna be a new trend on the escapist? People get mad at some reviewer for not liking the things they like then post a link of the offender to rally moral support?

BloatedGuppy:

ZehMadScientist:
Reminds me of the Last Airbender movie. Those who've seen the original animation thought it sucked arse. Those who haven't thought it was okay (from what I hear around me, anyway >.>)

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/last_airbender/

Was one of the most universally reviled films in recent memory. It's in Ecks vs Sever territory.

I suppose my friends have no taste then. I knew it.

Meatspinner:
Is this gonna be a new trend on the escapist? People get mad at some reviewer for not liking the things they like then post a link of the offender to rally moral support?

Beats the eternal listmaking. At least there's one interesting link in the whole thread.

BloatedGuppy:

Capitano Segnaposto:
People aren't angry at the low score, they are angry at the crappy writing of the review. Also they were arguing that the score itself does not indicate what is said in the review, as the review suggests the game is mediocre, yet in most people's minds a 2/10 signifies a broken game, not a mediocre one.

Oh give me a break, Ser Literary Critic. The writing in the review is fine. It's not changing anyone's life, but it's hardly of such atrocious quality as to generate wails of outrage. That exact same review with a more median score gets absolutely no comments whatsoever on the quality of the writing.

"Angry at the crappy writing". Please.

Calm your tits, Bloated. I wasn't the one complaining about the writing, I was just informing the person I quoted on what was happening in the thread.

RedDeadFred:

ResonanceGames:
Tom Chick uses the 1-10 scale. If you are a fan of the 7-10 scale, please stick to IGN.

He hated the game, he scored it accordingly, he said what he didn't like about it. G'night folks! We're done here.

I'll just set this right here: http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/02/12/action-girlz-racing-review

BTW, I'm not actually a fan of IGN. They are pretty inconsistent with their review quality and depth but you were practically asking for me to do a quick Google search of this.

Oh, you got me. Clearly I meant that every single review ever done by IGN rested in the 7-10 category and was not making a general and half-jesting statement about their overall use of grading scales.

Capitano Segnaposto:
Calm your tits, Bloated. I wasn't the one complaining about the writing, I was just informing the person I quoted on what was happening in the thread.

image

Well I offer the same rebuttal to them, then. No one in this thread is actually upset about "the writing". I see no complaints about syntax or sentence structure or flow. I see a lot of whining about a 2/10, though.

He could write the same review with prose so beautiful it made grown men weep with joy, and if the final score was 2/10 this thread would exist in more or less exactly the same form it does now.

Are you sure this review doesn't come from Pitchfork?

That strikes me as the kind of review where your 1 is not a horrendously broken game like E.T or something but instead is a mediocre game. These kinds of reviews really need to use negative numbers because if they ever saw a bad game it'd break their whole score system.

Batou667:

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)

No, you're quite right. This reviewer is clearly just fishing for controversy to make a name for himself. It's a pretty childish act of iconoclasm and not nearly as impressive as he probably thinks it is.

Edge gave Halo 4 an 8, having given the previous five main games a 10, 9, 10, 9, 9 respectively (I think) and to my mind that speaks volumes more than some biased troll review that criticises the lack of innovation and simultaneously moans about anything that's changed since Halo 3/Reach/CE.

See, I'd be glad to see a genuine review give Halo 4 a low or average score; simply because no game, no matter its prestige, should automatically get top end scores. I like to see popular games series put through their paces.

Twilight_guy:
That strikes me as the kind of review where your 1 is not a horrendously broken game like E.T or something but instead is a mediocre game. These kinds of reviews really need to use negative numbers because if they ever saw a bad game it'd break their whole score system.

Not really. They could just put: 0/5- the game is broken/just that bad.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Twilight_guy:
That strikes me as the kind of review where your 1 is not a horrendously broken game like E.T or something but instead is a mediocre game. These kinds of reviews really need to use negative numbers because if they ever saw a bad game it'd break their whole score system.

Not really. They could just put: 0/5- the game is broken/just that bad.

But you see the problem is how do they judge games that fall below mediocre. If an average game is a 1 and a broken game is a 0 then how do you score the many many levels between those two that are usually the 1-4 range. Do you give them fractions? Isn't that deceiving since there is as much of a range between those fraction as for the proceeding integer numbers? Do you just say that its a logarithmic scale? Would most viewers even know what that means? I just think its dumb.

ResonanceGames:

RedDeadFred:

ResonanceGames:
Tom Chick uses the 1-10 scale. If you are a fan of the 7-10 scale, please stick to IGN.

He hated the game, he scored it accordingly, he said what he didn't like about it. G'night folks! We're done here.

I'll just set this right here: http://ca.ign.com/articles/2009/02/12/action-girlz-racing-review

BTW, I'm not actually a fan of IGN. They are pretty inconsistent with their review quality and depth but you were practically asking for me to do a quick Google search of this.

Oh, you got me. Clearly I meant that every single review ever done by IGN rested in the 7-10 category and was not making a general and half-jesting statement about their overall use of grading scales.

I'm bad at reading sarcasm over the internet :(

Twilight_guy:

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:

Twilight_guy:
That strikes me as the kind of review where your 1 is not a horrendously broken game like E.T or something but instead is a mediocre game. These kinds of reviews really need to use negative numbers because if they ever saw a bad game it'd break their whole score system.

Not really. They could just put: 0/5- the game is broken/just that bad.

But you see the problem is how do they judge games that fall below mediocre. If an average game is a 1 and a broken game is a 0 then how do you score the many many levels between those two that are usually the 1-4 range. Do you give them fractions? Isn't that deceiving since there is as much of a range between those fraction as for the proceeding integer numbers? Do you just say that its a logarithmic scale? Would most viewers even know what that means? I just think its dumb.

You give the game a rough scale, and then you use the actual review to explain the fine particulars and ins-and-outs of your opinion and verdict.

The number at the end of the review should serve only as a rough guide, nothing more. If people want an in-depth explanation of what the reviewer thought, that's what the bloody review is for. Doing stupidly complicated things with numbers doesn't make things better, it only makes them more complicated. If a game is somewhere between mediocre and good, then it's up to the reviewer where they number it on the 5 point scale, then use the actual review to explain their reasoning.

That said, however, the five point scale is more than adequate for the vast majority of releases out there:

0- A broken game, no value at all.
1- Bottom of the barrel. Only gets points for technically working.
2- Sub-par. Has its plus points, but these are bogged down by flaws.
3- Decent. Nothing special, but fans of the genre will probably enjoy it for what it is.
4- Great. Has a few flaws, but the good more than outweighs the bad.
5- Superb. A masterpiece. One of the classics of this generation.

If gamers want to glean more information about a game than that, then it behooves them to actually read the content of a review, and see just why a reviewer gave it as many stars as he did.

People are allowed to dislike things...

I probably would have been mad about this kind of thing when i was 12, only could afford to have one or two games outside of Christmas at best and only ever one console. At that age you have to be CERTAIN that EVERYONE likes the game you like otherwise you'll be the one with the 'dud' game and no-one will talk to you at school, laughing at you for liking the 'bad' game. When you grow up you learn to not give a damn (sometimes).

If you like halo 4 (pre-emptively i might add) then why does it matter to you that some guy with a keyboard didn't? I'm not a massive fan of playing FPS games on console whatsoever (but i will make an exception for the halo series, since i do like the universe, it's the only reason my 360 is still hanging on it there after i started playing on PC in 2008), and i think CoD is a steaming pile o' junk now. There are some of my opinions, if you don't agree with them, that's fine, you're allowed to think so. It's as easy as that.

That guy is also allowed to (potentially) disagree with halo 4 when i play it. I don't care if he personally didn't like it, the only thing i care about with my entertainment is if I like it! :D

4RM3D:

Warachia:
The only people who are overreacting are people like you who don't bother to read a forum before commenting.
They are discussing a review, they are not crying or whining about it, they are looking at the points he made and giving their opinions on these points, since when was that taboo? Looking at the later posts, it seems to be a little hijacked by people who think an opinion can't be discussed.

They are discussing it only because the reviewer gave the game a 2/10. If he gave it a 8+, no one would have felt the need to discuss it, regardless of whether or not it was a poorly written review. This whole ordeal is biased. No, I just think it's pointless to 'review a review'. There are always going to be review(er)s out there you don't agree with. And there are always going to be trolls out there.

Why does it matter why they are discussing the review? They are not reviewing his review, they are discussing his review, and what you seem to be saying is we can't talk about reviews, at all, which is idiotic, yes, there are always reviews I don't agree with, as well as trolls, but why are you saying we can't talk about them?

Why the hell do people make a deal out of this, link to his review, and complain that he's "just doing it for traffic"? Guys, I hope you realize you're helping the guy get that "trolling traffic"?

I just needed to point that out. I have zero interest in the Halo in the first place, and don't see why people get their egoes hurt when someone doesn't enjoy what they enjoy.

I personally take my reviews from very few sources. Admittedly, most of them are from the Escapist. But most of my judgement on a game is based on the trailer and past experiences with the game. If the previous games are good and the trailer seems interesting, I'll go for it regardless, then decide wether I agree or disagree with the reviewers (I personally thought FFXIII was a GOOD game). If it doesn't seem all that great, I'll check the reviews first, and if they really say things like 'the box didn't actually contain a game, it literally contained boxed defecation', then I'll avoid it.

The only way in my opinion to be able to healthily criticque games it to play a wide variety of good and bad games. Some of the bad ones might have a lot of redeeming features that could be improved upon, and an overall good game might have some serious flaw. But in order to understand what makes a good or bad game, you have to play a little of both.

That way you don't turn into the 12-year old COD player reviewing Half-Life 2 on Metacritic going "no iron sights qq no perks qq no multiplayer qq i know it's 2012 and the game was made in 2004, but they should update the graphics in a game they made 8 years ago because qq and it must be bad because the developer's name isn't activision or treyarch qq"

And that was a copy-paste of an actual review I read on Metacritic of Half-life 2

people why won't you just enjoy what you enjoy and leave it at that. i can't wait for tomorrow i want to play this

YES! Called that it was Tom Chick as soon as I saw the title!

This is the guy who infamously gave Deus Ex (the original) a bad review. And while I generally disagree with his opinions, I'm not immature enough to go on a name-calling spree or whatever. He's entitled to them, and he is not a troll.

I think the real question here, as it was meant to be felt, is, "WHO would say such a thing"

Drop a red review on metacritic and watch your site's traffic figures spike... Those who don't like Halo might even enjoy a vicious laugh and stay around to see what other reviews you have.

/cynic

Like others said, yes, it's a numerically unfair review on account of the subject being a mechanically sound game of undeniable technical quality and polish, regardless of personal tastes. It's the first outing of Halo by a new company, so sure, they'll stick offer what's known as what's new with subtle tweaks and introductions to the overall formula. I figure it will be enjoyable, with that in mind.

PS: This guy gave Waking Mars a 5/5, so fuck his opinions, they're ALL wrong. ;)

Doomsdaylee:

I covered this, and to OP, this qualifies to your (thankfully intelligent) response as well.
Fair enough, it was written as a "canon" source.

It's still HUGELY stupid and egotistical to expect us to buy everything with the Halo logo slapped on it to fill their pockets so we can know what's going on...

If they DID cover this in-game, instead of just throwing it in and screwing all casual fans instead of brand hungry gits, good for them.

I do think the AI life-span is dumb, but that's not the point. The point ALSO isn't that it was "in the books first." It's HOW they did it.

For the record, I've only played Halo 2, and left when I discovered it was an over-hyped, sludge through mediocre town. That doesn't mean that Halo gets a free pass on bad writing/ideas/implementation of said ideas because it's a AAA (for some reason) game that I don't like.

I'd agree to this, but I've seen little evidence of poor implementation or confusion. I haven't read your entire conversation with the OP, so maybe it has been covered already. My apologies if that's the case.

Unless 343i did something REALLY stupid, I'd imagine it would play just like earlier Halos, where the story is relatively contained and little is explained in-game. For example, the Halo books (and by extension the Halo Wikia) explain a lot about the Flood, why there are no Grunt Flood forms, etc, but this information isn't essential for understanding what the hell is going on in-game, and would take a huge amount of time to make a cutscene for it or would otherwise be really boring to read while playing a freaking game.

As long as they include a sentence along the lines of "Cortana is reaching the end of her life as an AI" somewhere in Halo 4, I see a good implementation, with no need to buy any books or other material. Like the Codex entries in ME, the reasons why AI entities have a seven-year lifespan are not at all important, since almost any other series would hand-wave it with "because science."

If they DON'T include at least that much, then yeah, string 'em up.

This 2-sided argument over whether the guy is wrong for rating a competent (or great, whatever you pick) game a score that denotes "close to shit", or that he's justified for having an opinion, doesn't really matter at all. Because for MASSIVE franchises like Halo, one bad review, even if it noticeably affects the metascore, means nothing.

Halo 4 will sell like magic hotcakes ('cause who buys normal hotcakes en masse these days) and Microsoft will be pissing itself with excitement at all the cash it'll rake in.

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

Well what is the point of having a 10 out of 10 system then?

This is why people think 8/10 is a bad score, this is why people ignore 7/10 games. We need to be free of this narrow mindset of thinking that low scores only belong to broken games. Tom Chick critiques games on his basis and while I usually disagree with him I'm glad he does because he is the only person in gaming 'journalism' that has the balls to provide unique view on gaming. You have to understand this isn't IGN reviewing where they critique a product, Chick approaches gaming like a film critic approaches film. He focuses on his experiences with gameplay and story rather than dry technical aspects.

The only valid criticism I see is that there isn't a scoring system.
But what do I know, I had fun with the Kane and Lynch games.
Captcha: don't tase me

First of all it's He's given it 1 star out of 5 not 2/10.

Before you say this is a nonsense difference; star reviews generally rate how a person feels about a product. He's treating games more like films.

The 10 point 100 point systems for games usually account for things like playability. They take into account a consumer advice in their scoring system. This reviewer seems to be treating games as pieces of art specifically film.

And nobody cracks the shits when Roger Ebert gives a film 1 star because he doesn't like its theme or story-telling. He hates Kickass - I love Kickass.

So no, "1 star" do not mean that "pretty much the game has to be broken" any more than the a person giving "1 star" to the Avengers can only do so if the movie glitched an stopped working halfway through.

1 star...out of 5 (Or 2/10 if you rate it that way)...what?

I mean sure...it's his opinion but that just seems stupid...and that's my opinion. You know what, I'm going to play Halo 4 today after college and review it (Maybe) and post it on here...I would love to compare it to this guys review. D:

SirBryghtside:
YES! Called that it was Tom Chick as soon as I saw the title!

This is the guy who infamously gave Deus Ex (the original) a bad review. And while I generally disagree with his opinions, I'm not immature enough to go on a name-calling spree or whatever. He's entitled to them, and he is not a troll.

Yeah, Deus Ex is my favorite game of all time. I've read his infamous review of it (3/10) and it never crossed my mind to go running to a message board to bitch about it. He played the game, formed and opinion, and explained said opinion.

That Tom Chick doesn't condescend to us and try to be "objective" about these things is to his credit.

The smell of an anti-fanboy, or "edgy" reviewer.

In either case, as people have already pointed out, it is his opinion.

Score systems are pretty outdated anyway. How do you even decide what numbers equal what minimum? When the industry itself judges anything below 7.5 as being a "massive faliure" anyway, why is there anything below that?

So let him throw some mud - if you enjoy the game, play it.
If you're curious, have a look at a demo, youtube it (...oh wait, nevermind that one) or rent the game to have a look.
If not, try something else. Just move along and leave the man be to his mud throwing.

wooty:
While I'm no longer a fan of the Halo series, even a 2/10 seems harsh. A 5/10 would suffice for this series as it currently stands as from what I've heard from people......its not changed much. [Someone told me that it was practically Halo 3 with re-skinned enemies and a few extra colours.

(Note: This is just what I've heard from a few sources, I don't need people chasing me with torches, pitchforks and trays of cupcakes.)

There doesnt even seem to be much fanfare for this one too, I was barely aware it was even being released until I saw the review for it slide along the top of the homepage.

if you dont mind me asking, how did this person travel into the future and play the game before it was released? because to make that assumption, based on a full 7-10 hour game, they must have played it start to finish already.

OT: i actually tend to lean towards what my favourite websites say. they so far have yet to give below a 8.5 for halo 4, so i do not believe this persons claims that halo 4 is broken (as thats what a 2/10 represents), and that he is simply fishing for site traffic.

I do like the discussion of whether the original Deus Ex was an under the radar game or not. Oh and the 2/10 is just to attract traffic.

Somebody must of liked it..

Dear Jeep Devs... Put the controller down and step away from the Halo 4.

image

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked