Halo 4 gets a 2/10...

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

xshadowscreamx:

alphamalet:

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.

im sorry, i think i was high on happiness that day playing halo 4.. theirs numerous games deserve 2/10. like the ps2 game ''25 to life''.. but not this game, theirs a lot of effort and love put in this game. the opening cut scene is the best cut scene i have scene in halo. the game may not deserve 10 but it also does not deserve a 2. thats just trolling.

The amount of effort and/or love put in the game is not what a games score is determined by, else Duke Nukem Forever would have been a perfect 10. It's not trolling, it's his opinion, and he gave it a 1 out of 5, there is a difference.

charge52:

xshadowscreamx:

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.

im sorry, i think i was high on happiness that day playing halo 4.. theirs numerous games deserve 2/10. like the ps2 game ''25 to life''.. but not this game, theirs a lot of effort and love put in this game. the opening cut scene is the best cut scene i have scene in halo. the game may not deserve 10 but it also does not deserve a 2. thats just trolling.

The amount of effort and/or love put in the game is not what a games score is determined by, else Duke Nukem Forever would have been a perfect 10. It's not trolling, it's his opinion, and he gave it a 1 out of 5, there is a difference.

my life bar is depleted, your a victorious. i totally forgot about duke nukem forever, the game that ''defied'' all expectations.

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)

It worked because you posted about it?

Notsomuch:

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)

It worked because you posted about it?

True but it worked before that by simply getting on Metacritic. Also, apparently this guy has been around for a long time and doesn't really need the extra publicity (at least that's what a couple of people have told me) so he really might just dislike the game that much.

So, somebody's full of shit. The gameplay certainly looks very solid. I am a bit annoyed at the injection of Cortana's PMS melodrama.

ALSO, the composer is different, and therefore the main theme is totally new AND all of the atmosphere of the game has been a bit altered.

I actually really disliked this at first because NOT WHAT I'M USED TO. But it's growing on me. I haven't actually played the game yet, and when dealing with any type of scoring you need to actually experience the entire product.

The title screen actually follows the Halo formula. Vocal music (female), though with a more middle eastern scale as opposed to 7 tone western gregorian chant. After that a little moody sci fi stuff (VERY DIFFERENT WHAT WITH OSCILLATING NOISE AND STAR TREK HORNS), then Halo piano chords played at 3:18.

Still unsure

Plays pretty dang good to me, but I'm no connoisseur, I just like to play shooters and RPGs and have a good time.

I've always had a distaste for Halo, much like I have a distaste for Call of Duty and Tekken.. All for basically the same reason: Refusal to evolve.

Regardless how little changes from game to game, and how much I dislike the formula, and how I vow to not spend another dollar until a change is made... I will never deny that they are objectively 'good' games. You don't make gigantic franchises like this by making bad games. And I doubt Halo 4 is a bad game.

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)

Anyway, what do my fellow Escapists think about the review. I myself got a bit of a laugh out of it but a lot of the things he was criticizing I don't personally think are all that bad. I'm not going to get the game anyway because I've only ever really cared about the campaigns in Halo games but I'll definitely rent it.

All I see is that someone really hates the game. That's pretty much it.

Grand scheme of things, I think one opinion does not matter. What should matter more is the overall score. In order to get an almost 90 score, you are going to need more positive votes than negative ones.

What is more surprising is that the popular opinion is dead even. Everyone that loves it, there's another that hates it. Either that's because some people are dirty hipsters who only hate the game ironically or they are getting tired of samey games.

Trolls will be trolls a 2/10 is a game that is unplayable and completely broken. Halo 4 may not be that great but it's none of these.

malestrithe:

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)

Anyway, what do my fellow Escapists think about the review. I myself got a bit of a laugh out of it but a lot of the things he was criticizing I don't personally think are all that bad. I'm not going to get the game anyway because I've only ever really cared about the campaigns in Halo games but I'll definitely rent it.

All I see is that someone really hates the game. That's pretty much it.

Grand scheme of things, I think one opinion does not matter. What should matter more is the overall score. In order to get an almost 90 score, you are going to need more positive votes than negative ones.

What is more surprising is that the popular opinion is dead even. Everyone that loves it, there's another that hates it. Either that's because some people are dirty hipsters who only hate the game ironically or they are getting tired of samey games.

Judging from the user reviews, it's probably the latter. Sure there's probably a few people just trolling but the majority of them seem genuinely disappointed.

disgruntledgamer:
Trolls will be trolls a 2/10 is a game that is unplayable and completely broken. Halo 4 may not be that great but it's none of these.

What? 2 is unplayable? Whats worse than that? If 2 is totally broken then what can 1 and 0 mean. I HATE the 3 point scale we have now where it works like this:

0 - Joke
1 - Joke
2 - Joke
3 - Joke
4 - Joke
5 - Terrible
6 - Bad
7 - Average
8 - Good
9 - Very good
10 - Excellent

When instead it should be.

0 - Broken and totally unplayable.
1 - Extremely bad
2 - Pretty damn bad
3 - Bad
4 - Quite bad
5 - Average
6 - Good
7 - Quite good
8 - Pretty damn good
9 - Extremely good
10 - Almost perfect

If halo 4 is pretty damn bad so be it. I doubt it is though. Id say it merits a 4 at worst.

It's been a while, but... has Halo EVER had iron sights?

AI's having a lifespan isn't a terrible idea at all. It's great, and that the reviewer didn't understand that Cortana isn't just ones and zeroes, she's a neural network type intelligence and surpasses human intellect because she's essentially a synthetic mind, thus why not explore the idea of mental disorder and neurological decay, etc in an AI.

I think we should focus less on the actual review and more on the fact that it's on Metacritic.

At least he's not doing a gamespot and just giving 8/10s to mediocre blockbuster games

also it's 1/5, not 2/10. Unless there's a 0.5/5 it's not the same thing

BiscuitTrouser:

disgruntledgamer:
Trolls will be trolls a 2/10 is a game that is unplayable and completely broken. Halo 4 may not be that great but it's none of these.

What? 2 is unplayable? Whats worse than that? If 2 is totally broken then what can 1 and 0 mean. I HATE the 3 point scale we have now where it works like this:

0 - Joke
1 - Joke
2 - Joke
3 - Joke
4 - Joke
5 - Terrible
6 - Bad
7 - Average
8 - Good
9 - Very good
10 - Excellent

When instead it should be.

0 - Broken and totally unplayable.
1 - Extremely bad
2 - Pretty damn bad
3 - Bad
4 - Quite bad
5 - Average
6 - Good
7 - Quite good
8 - Pretty damn good
9 - Extremely good
10 - Almost perfect

Agree so hard. I don't pay attention to game reviewers for this very reason. I mean, officially Halo Reach got "critically acclaimed" for fuck's sake, despite being completely inferior to prior Halo installations.

Ok I gotta say something...

A lot of lesser known JRPG's get reviews like that and apparently we're not allowed to complain about those. I'm not saying the Halo 4 review is right though. Just saying bad reviews and their reviewers should be called out for not doing their job properly.

I've always despised Halo with a passion, but none of them have been worse than average. Just a 6/10 game with a bizarrely huge following. Pretty obvious troll review if you ask me.

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/

Diablo 3 scores higher than Mass Effect 3?

I've seen enough.

I think I'm gonna start a satirical game review rating every game below 5 for the sake of just pissing people off.

The hell is wrong with you, people?
a) Listening to Metacritic is idiocy. Just get over it.
b) Someone doesn't like a game that may or may not be objectively "good". Shits given: None.
c) Stop getting so freaking worked up about someone posting a review score that doesn't fit with the "IT HAS TO BE 9+ FOR ELSE THE GAME IS BAAAD!" scheme.

AnarchistFish:
Agree so hard. I don't pay attention to game reviewers for this very reason. I mean, officially Halo Reach got "critically acclaimed" for fuck's sake, despite being completely inferior to prior Halo installations.

Despite not being a Halo fan, I've played every game and I have to say, Halo Reach was probably my favorite. I don't play, nor care about multiplayer (though I do split-screen coop), but everything about Reach's story seemed better written and enjoyable to me. I actually knew what was happening from one scene to the next, and the matured system seemed to be the best overall.

As for the OP's Iron Sight problem. I've always wanted more accurate guns in Halo, and ended up gravitating to the covenant carbine and battle rifle because they had scopes. I would've loved to use some of the other weapons - but I suck at FPS' and die too easily at close range...

Reminds me of Jim Sterling's 4.5/10 rating of Assassin's Creed 2. That review alone almost ended Destructoid as a credible video game site.

Think I'm joking? One of the complaints that Jim had was that Ezio didn't climb up buildings fast enough...

Sidney Buit:

AnarchistFish:
Agree so hard. I don't pay attention to game reviewers for this very reason. I mean, officially Halo Reach got "critically acclaimed" for fuck's sake, despite being completely inferior to prior Halo installations.

Despite not being a Halo fan, I've played every game and I have to say, Halo Reach was probably my favorite. I don't play, nor care about multiplayer (though I do split-screen coop), but everything about Reach's story seemed better written and enjoyable to me. I actually knew what was happening from one scene to the next, and the matured system seemed to be the best overall.

Seriously? I found Reach's story way too short. And it seemed to be trying to cram too much into a short space of time. It had all the clichéd characters- the gutsy woman, the alpha male, the quiet one who seems to take a dislike to the protagonist immediately- and kills them off one by one in such a half hearted manner before they're given any time to develop.
Whereas with Halo CE, you have the main character who's working alone with his sarky AI. You feel how they interact as they progress through long, desolate areas and the game had a much grittier and colder vibe. Halo 3 was the beginning of the end really. I still get some enjoyment out of the games, but they've become 5s and 6s /10 rather than 9s.

xshadowscreamx:

Deathninja19:

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.

i fully agree, lets ignore numbers and focus on the words.

Ah, I remember back when the Escapist reviews did that.

People are still harping on about this shessssh

Guy didn't like it and rated it accordingly END OF

Now go play some halo and have some fun dammit!!

Captcha: which one is math? (I find this an unanswerable question as maths is spelt incorrectly, I will therefore answer with chocolate pudding!)

BiscuitTrouser:
I HATE the 3 point scale we have now where it works like this:

[snip]

When instead it should be.

[snap]

Your latter scale is just as useless. Gaming magazines dont' want to review bad games so 50% of the scale is right out. People who buy $60 games don't want to buy anything except very good or excellent games unless it's the most expected sequel in the world (Diablo III, anyone?)

The scale would only be meaningful if we accepted "good" as the starting level. 0 stars for broken games, 1 for bad games and 2 for 80% games. Next 8 stars are there to differentiate between varying levels of excellence.

I mean, I think most games warrant somewhere between 2 to 5 stars on the current broken scale just because they are such mindless entertainment. It's like TV, just with a controller. But since people seem to need reviews to justify their purchases and reinforce their sense of community, it's better to make a scale that lets them feel good about their games and themselves.

AnarchistFish:

Seriously? I found Reach's story way too short. And it seemed to be trying to cram too much into a short space of time. It had all the clichéd characters- the gutsy woman, the alpha male, the quiet one who seems to take a dislike to the protagonist immediately- and kills them off one by one in such a half hearted manner before they're given any time to develop.
Whereas with Halo CE, you have the main character who's working alone with his sarky AI. You feel how they interact as they progress through long, desolate areas and the game had a much grittier and colder vibe. Halo 3 was the beginning of the end really. I still get some enjoyment out of the games, but they've become 5s and 6s /10 rather than 9s.

I've found all of the Halo games to be far too short, except Combat Evolved. I remember playing that game and thinking "When will these fights F***ing end?" which is never a good sign.

A lot of it could be that I have terrible hand-eye coordination, so that I need to shoot at center-mass to have any hope of hitting anything - as opposed to the 1-bajillion head shots in a row that I suffered in my short attempt in verses multiplayer. But every fight dragged on forever and it was just too tedious for me to get too invested in the story.

Sidney Buit:

AnarchistFish:

Seriously? I found Reach's story way too short. And it seemed to be trying to cram too much into a short space of time. It had all the clichéd characters- the gutsy woman, the alpha male, the quiet one who seems to take a dislike to the protagonist immediately- and kills them off one by one in such a half hearted manner before they're given any time to develop.
Whereas with Halo CE, you have the main character who's working alone with his sarky AI. You feel how they interact as they progress through long, desolate areas and the game had a much grittier and colder vibe. Halo 3 was the beginning of the end really. I still get some enjoyment out of the games, but they've become 5s and 6s /10 rather than 9s.

I've found all of the Halo games to be far too short, except Combat Evolved. I remember playing that game and thinking "When will these fights F***ing end?" which is never a good sign.

Sometimes they did drag on..

Sidney Buit:
A lot of it could be that I have terrible hand-eye coordination, so that I need to shoot at center-mass to have any hope of hitting anything - as opposed to the 1-bajillion head shots in a row that I suffered in my short attempt in verses multiplayer. But every fight dragged on forever and it was just too tedious for me to get too invested in the story.

haha I know what you mean. I was surprised when I found out I only have about 1.4 deaths per kill on Halo Reach multiplayer. I get slaughtered every game- see an enemy, shoot him in the chest. Shoot him again. Trying hitting him in the head. He still hasn't turned around. Shoot again. He turns around bang headshot I'm dead.

freaper:
Diablo 3 scores higher than Mass Effect 3?

I've seen enough.

They were both huge disappointments. I'm not sure what you're outraged about, unless it's both of them getting higher scores than they deserved.

snowbear:
People are still harping on about this shessssh

Guy didn't like it and rated it accordingly END OF

Now go play some halo and have some fun dammit!!

Captcha: which one is math? (I find this an unanswerable question as maths is spelt incorrectly, I will therefore answer with chocolate pudding!)

So the guy can criticize the game but no one can criticize his review? Kind of ass backwards thinking, don't you think?

Not even a Halo fan but 2/10 is a troll rating, and it'll be called as such.

Are you people STILL arguing?
It was funny at first, now it's just sad....

Tom Chick tends to give low scores to a lot of things, and I understand why, I'm in the process of turning into him after 4 years of reviewing at least one game a week, and coming to the conclusion they're all the same and stink. But he didn't give it a 2/10, he gave it one star. Metacritic thinks that's a 2/10, it's not. I don't honestly remember Tom giving 5 stars to anything, though I don't read his reviews often.

Daniel Ferguson:
It's been a while, but... has Halo EVER had iron sights?

Nope. The series has always had aiming either through a scope or through a zoom function on the visor.

Hey guys, what if, what if experiences are subjective, and reviews about those experiences also get rated subjectively? What if the guy played Halo 4 and didn't think it was his cup of for the reasons he listed? What if he then said what he thought about the game?

Does that mean it's a bad game? Does that mean he's a troll?

NO! It just means that he didn't like the game!
People throw their arms up and start a shitstorm over someone disliking what they like!
Deus Ex is not sacrosanct because people liked it and it was 'critically acclaimed'.
What if Tom Chick didn't like it and thought it wasn't a good experience and rated it thereafter? It just means that he didn't enjoy it as much or the same way as you do.

If you see someone eating sushi do you sit by your table with your face in your hands going "Jesus christ, this guy must be trolling. How can he eat sushi!?".

Doomsdaylee:
snip

This is just an update, now that I've actually played Halo 4.

The reviewer is absolutely full of shit with respect to how the AI-decay was presented.

Spoiler alert:

Your assertion that books needed to be bought to understand the story about rampancy was, thankfully, unfounded, and the reviewer is, at least in this one point, full of shit.

The books go deeper into sci-fi explanations of just how AIs are made and the like, but everything in the game thus far is perfectly contained within the game alone or the previous Halo games.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked