Halo 4 gets a 2/10...

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

Deadlywere:
Well, this is a guy that hated the original Deus Ex, or so the comments and his other posts say.

He also says that ME3 is "every bit as good as the original Knights of the Old Republic." Excuse me while I hurl.

Bill Nye the Zombie:
He also says that ME3 is "every bit as good as the original Knights of the Old Republic." Excuse me while I hurl.

ME3 wasn't very good.

However, neither was KOTOR, really.

2/10 strikes me as 'needs to have a serious flaw'

Like an unintended instadeath mechanic that lets you walk through walls and clip through to the end boss in the second room.

4/10 or 5/10 is 'lacks innovation'. Like I think was being said here.

Obviously all reviewing is subjective to the user but this seems... a bit like an attention grab.

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.

Not really.

First of all, saying 9's and 10's are handed out too often is false. It has just been so that here in the last two years, we - as gamers - have been treated to a lot of actually GOOD games. The games that get 9's or 10's these days generally get so because they're really worth it. I just purchased Dishonored and XCOM: Enemy Unknown for PC two weeks ago (Metascores 92 and 89) and both games have been a really good experience. Mass Effect 3 was also great (except the ending, but the gameplay up to that point was the best in the series).

Secondly, games scores - unlike movies, music and books - needs to take into account buggy and unplayable games. If you purchase a brand new book or DVD movie, you can be sure that if the movie won't play or the book catches fire, the fault is either that your DVD player is broken or that you shouldn't play with fire, and the fault is not in the product you purchased. Games aren't like that. Game scores needs to reserve space in the lower end of the scale for games that constantly bugs out or crashes (on top of being just "bad"). Even games with downright terrible gameplay and story are still gonna appeal to some people if they don't crash all the time, which is why a score of around 6 (and not 5) should be mean "average" when talking games.

Since i doubt Halo 4 is a game that is holed with bugs all over (and i also doubt the gameplay is downright terrible, even if it's like the earlier games in the series), a 2/10 score just shows that the reviewer is incompetent or doesn't understand his own job. Nothing more.

Blargh McBlargh:

RedDeadFred:
Normally I'd agree with this but seeing as it's a new studio, people don't really know how much of a Halo game it's going to be.

About 90% the same.

Too much change and the fanboys will go all spastic and what not.

Very true. Judging by the user reviews on Metacritic, they were not able to prevent a very large portion of the fanboys from doing that...

Athinira:
snip

I disagree with this notion. Sure if you find bugs in a game, then that's a fact and can't be debated (though others may not have found those same bugs. But all that matters in your review is your experience, so everyone else is irrelevant). However, the subjective part here is how much those bugs damage your opinion of the game. Want to see evidence of this at work? Search for almost any thread about Obsidian or Bethesda games on here. Among people who experienced bugs in those games, you'll see a wild variance in how those bugs hindered their experience. Reviewing games is subjective. Period.

The real point that should be driven home is this...

BloatedGuppy:
He had the temerity to give a popular game a low score.

People can talk all they want about "honest" reviews. They don't want honest reviews. They want reviews that align with their opinions/preconceptions. If they don't, the reviewer will be accused of either trolling for hits or shilling for companies, depending on whether or not the review is perceived as scoring too high or too low.

If people here truly want reviewers to use the full scale, then we have to accept that sometimes games we light might get trashed. I'm not saying we shouldn't question the points (not the points as in the score, but what the reviewer states he has an issue with) in the review. But simply calling them a troll and outright dismissing them just makes us look like hypocritical children.

Athinira:

Not really.

First of all, saying 9's and 10's are handed out too often is false. It has just been so that here in the last two years, we - as gamers - have been treated to a lot of actually GOOD games. The games that get 9's or 10's these days generally get so because they're really worth it. I just purchased Dishonored and XCOM: Enemy Unknown for PC two weeks ago (Metascores 92 and 89) and both games have been a really good experience. Mass Effect 3 was also great (except the ending, but the gameplay up to that point was the best in the series).

I want you to name 5 AAA games off the top of your head that got an aggregate of 7/10 or below. I bet you can't do it quickly. Now name 5 AAA games that got at least a 7/10. A lot, and somehow I don't think that every AAA game that gets released deserves that sort of overwhelming positive praise. Yes, positive scores are given out far more liberally than negative ones, especially when you look at the score disparity between your average movie review, and your average game review.

Secondly, games scores - unlike movies, music and books - needs to take into account buggy and unplayable games. If you purchase a brand new book or DVD movie, you can be sure that if the movie won't play or the book catches fire, the fault is either that your DVD player is broken or that you shouldn't play with fire, and the fault is not in the product you purchased. Games aren't like that. Game scores needs to reserve space in the lower end of the scale for games that constantly bugs out or crashes (on top of being just "bad"). Even games with downright terrible gameplay and story are still gonna appeal to some people if they don't crash all the time, which is why a score of around 6 (and not 5) should be mean "average" when talking games.

Yes, games are different than movies, but I don't see what point you're trying to make here. You wouldn't review a music album the same way you would review a movie. Of course you don't review a game the same way you review a movie. What does that prove? The scores of the reviews take into account things like bugs in a game. Why in the hell would there be a minimum score guarantee for a game that is technically proficient and bug free? What difference should that make? A terrible game is terrible, with or without bugs.

And again, in what universe is a 5/10 not average? The mean (average) of all numbers between 0-10 is 5. 5 is the average. How does 6=average or 7=average?

Since i doubt Halo 4 is a game that is holed with bugs all over (and i also doubt the gameplay is downright terrible, even if it's like the earlier games in the series), a 2/10 score just shows that the reviewer is incompetent or doesn't understand his own job. Nothing more.

Yes, clearly the reviewer misinterpreted his own opinion. Reviews are not meant to be uniform, or validate someone's opinion.

LostintheWick:
Dude is just an amateur. He doesn't know to review a title objectively.

Given how long Tom Chick has been posting reviews, I wouldn't call him an amateur, per se...

And, reading his review, I do feel that he does have a few points.

DMShade:
I dislike the Halo Series, but it'd have to be broken before I would give it a 4. I see review scores like Test Scores. 50 or 5/10 or 2.5/5 stars etc is a Minimal Pass. It works, but that's about it.

A 2 couldn't be more blatantly a call for attention if you set up your own stage and spotlights.

Oh look, someone has almost - almost - stumbled onto the inherent idiocy of taking Metacritic particularly seriously, or review scores in general.

(Here's a hint folks: no one has a fucking consensus on what the arbitrary numbers mean.)

alphamalet:
I want you to name 5 AAA games off the top of your head that got an aggregate of 7/10 or below. I bet you can't do it quickly. Now name 5 AAA games that got at least a 7/10. A lot, and somehow I don't think that every AAA game that gets released deserves that sort of overwhelming positive praise.

That's a very biased test you're putting up there. People remember the games the like better than the games that are terrible (typically because they didn't buy the latter). Sure we all remember games that we tried and found terrible, but that's the exception rather than the rule. We mostly remember games we liked, and we mostly read reviews about games we suspect we'll like which tend to have a higher metascore.

In short, your test is useless because it's scientifically unbiased.

Yes, games are different than movies, but I don't see what point you're trying to make here. You wouldn't review a music album the same way you would review a movie. Of course you don't review a game the same way you review a movie. What does that prove? The scores of the reviews take into account things like bugs in a game. Why in the hell would there be a minimum score guarantee for a game that is technically proficient and bug free? What difference should that make? A terrible game is terrible, with or without bugs.

Like i said, no matter how terrible you personally feel a game is, if it's bug-free and in a playable state, there will always be people who are into this sort of thing.

To give a similar example, go read Robert Eberts review of "The Human Centipede". In his 50+ years career as a movie reviewer, this movie was the first review ever where he decided not to assign the movie a score. He thought the movie was distasteful, but didn't want to give it a thumbs down because he knew that the film had a decent sized target audience who were into that sort of thing.

Same thing can be said about Halo 4. You can say it lacks innovation or in story, but fact is that there is a lot of people who are still into the genre, and - having played it earlier today - i can say that it displays adequate (but not outstanding) design that delivers on that promise. Different opinions are different, but the reviewer in question here has clearly failed to keep perspective.

And again, in what universe is a 5/10 not average? The mean (average) of all numbers between 0-10 is 5. 5 is the average. How does 6=average or 7=average?

Because it's a scale (from "terrible" to "awesome"). 5.0 is the MIDDLE score. That doesn't mean it's the average score. If more games (or movies or whatever) come out that are good than bad, then the average score is obviously not going to be 5.0.

The review system is not a zero sum system, and never was intended to be.

Yes, clearly the reviewer misinterpreted his own opinion. Reviews are not meant to be uniform, or validate someone's opinion.

I didn't say he misinterpreted his own opinion. I said he didn't understand how to use a score system properly. I'd hate to see the day he gets a hold of a game that is truly terrible in every single aspect (so dreadful that he would be willing to PAY money to not play it), because i suspect he would have to blow his own 0-10 scale then and give it a negative score. As a reviewer, if you use a detailed score system, you need to consider what headroom the score you assign leaves for better a worse products. In the case of Halo 4, you can get something that is far beyond worse.

So a guy gave Halo 4 a 2/10... so? There's alot of other people who have their say and I don't think you need to beat this guy over the head so much because of it. Not that I'm saying you absolutely shouldn't do that but this kinda feels like a waste.

In regards to a logical rating system, here's a simple one to follow:
Take 4 categories (Gameplay, Visuals, Sounds, Story, etc.)
Each category can be rated between 1-10
Add all categories scores together then divide by 4.
You get your final score.

Gameplay 6
Visuals 5
Sound 8
Story 4
Overall Score 5.75

Simple.

DustyDrB:

If people here truly want reviewers to use the full scale, then we have to accept that sometimes games we light might get trashed. I'm not saying we shouldn't question the points (not the points as in the score, but what the reviewer states he has an issue with) in the review. But simply calling them a troll and outright dismissing them just makes us look like hypocritical children.

Even assuming he isn't a troll, the fact that this one "internet celebrity's" review is getting such attention shows how easy it WOULD be to troll people.

Think for yourselves for a change.
Christ.

Well a numbered rating is inherently flawed, so I am not going to comment on whether I found the score correct or not. But, my personal opinion would be 'extremely unfavourable' because I'm quite frankly, sick of Halo.

LostintheWick:
Dude is just an amateur. He doesn't know to review a title objectively.
He's probably a hype-hater.

(personal preference can't be taken out of the equation entirely, but it can be tempered)

objective...review...*sigh*

Atmos Duality:
Even assuming he isn't a troll, the fact that this one internet nobody's review is getting such attention shows how easy it WOULD be to troll people.

Is it really that hard to read a thread, or type someone's name into a search engine? Chick is probably one of the highest profile reviewers in the industry. You and I are internet nobodies. Go start a blog and write a troll review. We'll see how much attention you get. Spoiler: virtually none.

BloatedGuppy:
Is it really that hard to read a thread, or type someone's name into a search engine? Chick is probably one of the highest profile reviewers in the industry.

I don't care if this guy is the Roger Ebert of the internet, if people are getting this upset over a simple dissenting review, I weep for our future.

Atmos Duality:
I don't care if this guy is the Roger Ebert of the internet, if people are getting this upset over a simple dissenting review, I weep for our future.

I'm just correcting your misapprehension. If I get a fact wrong, and someone corrects me on my incorrect fact, I usually say "thanks" and move on with life. I don't get defensive and claim I "don't care" about facts. You can mock people for getting upset at a dissenting review all you want, they deserve it.

I just saw some ingame footage on Jimquisition, and I noticed that it looks A LOT like Metroid Prime. With the visible helmet perspective and the enemy behaviour.

Oh no, he didn't like a game. And he scored it accordingly.

His reasons for disliking the game are totally incongruous with ours - which makes his review unconvincing and safe to disregard as consumer advice - but I don't really give a shit if he doesn't like it.

BloatedGuppy:

I'm just correcting your misapprehension. If I get a fact wrong, and someone corrects me on my incorrect fact, I usually say "thanks" and move on with life. I don't get defensive and claim I "don't care" about facts.

If he's popular, fine. He's popular. I'll change my post if it makes you happy.
This is why I don't want to bother with this site anymore. People jump down my throat for the smallest fucking things.

I get defensive because I am sick and fucking tired of it; I'm tired of the passive-aggressive tone everyone loves to sling around here. Lots of White Knights and nitpicking assholes.

If that wasn't your intended tone, then I'm sorry.

You can mock people for getting upset at a dissenting review all you want, they deserve it.

At least my original point survived this mess.

dessertmonkeyjk:

Gameplay 6
Visuals 5
Sound 8
Story 4
Overall Score 5.75

Simple.

Now rate Tetris or Super Mario Bros 3 (aguably one of the best games of all time) with that scale.
Did you find the issue?

You can't break it down that way for every game as not all games are aspiring to give us identical experiences. In the two I mentionned story is irrelevant. So why judge it on that category?

Reviews can't be streamlined into a "logical" one-size-fits-all template.
Edit: And if we could, I would think it'd be closer to "The Good, The Bad and The Ugly" - which is pretty much what most reviewers do anyhow.

Also - Shit! We've now hit 9 pages of angry fanboys bashing a reviewer for having an opinion... sad.

Atmos Duality:
If he's popular, fine. He's popular. I'll change my post if it makes you happy.

This is why I don't want to bother with this site anymore. People jump down my throat for the smallest fucking things.

I get defensive because I am sick and fucking tired of it; I'm tired of the passive-aggressive tone everyone loves to sling around here. Lots of White Knights and nitpicking assholes.

If that wasn't your intended tone, then I'm sorry.

You can mock people for getting upset at a dissenting review all you want, they deserve it.

At least my original point survived this mess.

Well here's the thing...half of this ludicrous 9 page thread is angry Halo fanatics attempting to hand wave the guy because he's a "nobody" rather than just accepting that human beings can have differing opinions. I've posted numerous articles and rebuttals demonstrating that this is not the case, and then one post below mine someone will say "Derp derp clearly some nobody trying 2 get hitz 4 his startup website lulz!" and it's making me crazy. You're annoyed with White Knights and nitpickers? I'm annoyed that we can't just establish facts on page one and then discuss those facts. Instead we have to discuss presumptions, and then presumptions about presumptions, and then we end up neck deep in a morass of semantic bickering rather than having any kind of fruitful discourse about the OT. That's why I'm "nitpicking".

PS - When did we start hating white knights, anyway? I remember when white knights were the good guys. Now it's like...terminally unhip to have noble motivations, or something.

PPS - Hey wait a minute, urban dictionary defines white knighting as being entirely gender based behavior! It doesn't even apply here!

Firefight sucked lets face it and AI's always had a lifetime they just didn't mention it too much in the games because you're busy shooting shit.

BloatedGuppy:

I've posted numerous articles and rebuttals demonstrating that this is not the case, and then one post below mine someone will say "Derp derp clearly some nobody trying 2 get hitz 4 his startup website lulz!" and it's making me crazy.

I'd blame the Occam's Razor app everyone runs.
The guy trolling for ad-hits (whether he's already popular or not) is the simplest, and most immediately rational explanation.

It isn't necessarily a CORRECT explanation, but it is one.
Whenever it comes to reviews, especially internet reviews, the easiest and most common route is to immediately go for their credibility and intentions.

That's what I'm taking from this. I do not want to pore over 9 pages of mindless rambling, about something that IMO, SHOULDN'T MATTER IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Halo 4, nay, NO GAME is Helen of fucking Troy here. Her honor doth require no defense.

I'm annoyed that we can't just establish facts on page one and then discuss those facts.

Fair enough. I took a hiatus from these forums because objectivity was basically a lost art.
(not that I was helping anyway)

Incidentally: I have a mathematical function for forum behavior and thread objectivity.

As Page # -> Infinity(P),
Objectivity -> 0

And I have fallen prey to that.

PS - When did we start hating white knights, anyway? I remember when white knights were the good guys. Now it's like...terminally unhip to have noble motivations, or something.

"Noble" has been transforming into "pretentious, singleminded and condescending".
I cannot tell you how many times I've seen people call Extra Credits and Moviebob preachy and condescending when rushing to the defense of a subject.

The problem lies not in intention, but the presentation.

PPS - Hey wait a minute, urban dictionary defines white knighting as being entirely gender based behavior! It doesn't even apply here!

It needs an update. I think we've moved past the Romantic and Elizabethan interpretation of "white knighting" when it's applied to internet behavior.

I could see Yahtzee giving it a grade like that. If he's serious about it, then he didn't like the Halo series to begin with. Really though, if you flat out don't like a game series, you probably shouldn't be reviewing it because you're going to be so biased that you can't really take it seriously.

Oh, wow, what an incredibly daring stunt of promoting someone's well pathological unwarranted self-importance.

To be honest, I don't like the Halo IP much, the most profound emotional responses it ever stirred in me were

a) they bored and annoyed me
b) they entertained me for a grand total of, say, two hours in a competitive environment
c) they made me laugh (I think that was Halo 3, you know, the last in a trilogy of, what, seven games or so and counting...)

So, I don't like Halo 4 and yet I think it deserves somewhere between, say, 74% to maybe 85%, going at it in a decidedly neutral and objective mindset.

Giving it a 2/10 is complete asshattery and should be punished by putting the malfeasant on the
block, where normal people can ridicule him, spit at him or throw moldy vegetables at him.

Captcha: the tribe has spoken.

Oh, wow.

All hail the tribe!

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)

This is Tom Chick. He's an industry veteran with an idiosyncratic perspective, but "trolling for hits" would be pretty out-of-character--especially since he's been running "Quarter to Three" as a fairly personal, low-profile website for (I believe) about a decade.

Charli:
2/10 strikes me as 'needs to have a serious flaw'

Like an unintended instadeath mechanic that lets you walk through walls and clip through to the end boss in the second room.

4/10 or 5/10 is 'lacks innovation'. Like I think was being said here.

Obviously all reviewing is subjective to the user but this seems... a bit like an attention grab.

Why? I don't give every movie extra points just for not having jump cuts, mics in the shots, or other technical issues. Games shouldn't be given free points just for basically functioning.

Oh man, I had almost forgotten how annoying Halo fanboys were.
Seriously, what does it matter to you? If you like the game why would you care if others don't? And always, always the same old, shitty "OMG TEH BIAS" argument.

Staskala:
Oh man, I had almost forgotten how annoying Halo fanboys were.
Seriously, what does it matter to you? If you like the game why would you care if others don't? And always, always the same old, shitty "OMG TEH BIAS" argument.

I'm assuming you didn't read my OP because I made it pretty clear that I have no plans of getting this game since I have not been interested in Halo in quite some time. Is it really wrong to discuss a particularly contrarian review of a video game on a forum that's about video games?
Also, your argument works the same way against you. What does it matter to you what other people talk about? You don't have to click on the link to the thread. I used to feel the same way about Mass Effect 3 ending threads because they've been done to death. Then I realized: "hey, I don't have to click on this and post in it. If I want it to go away, maybe I should just not post in the thread!"

chadachada123:

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.

Thanks for the update. I don't belive the reviewer mentioned how it was presented, I just didn't know. :| Glad to hear they're not TOTAL idiots...

Still a bad idea if you ask me, but they can't be blamed for that.

I gave up on this thread when someone seemed to be making the accusations that "people are only disagreeing with the score because they're fanboys that think the game deserves a 10/10." I'm amazed the OP was able to intelligently respond to such remarks.

A reviewer should be able to review what they want. But yes, people should be able to question reviews without being accused of being a fanboy (or a hater).

The scores are a lot less important than the criticism anyway... as suggested in the initial post. Both sides of the argument seem to have neglected this. Well, maybe they haven't completely. As I mentioned, I gave up without reading all replies, but I saw enough to see the fanboy argument was still being used on page 9.

Here's what I do when it comes to critics.

Don't listen to them.

Yes they may have some good points but most are either bought and paid for or they're little retards like this one.

The only critics I put ANY heed to are the ones on the escapist.

Alcoholidayer:
objective...review...*sigh*

Objective reviews aren't a myth. It's perfectly possible to detach yourself from your personal bias, and explain how a product works rather than explaining what you feel about it.

If it's a score based review, then the score will obviously be subjective. But the review text doesn't have to be.

You make another game after ending a story arc, you're gonna have a bad time. It';s like French-Frying when you're supposed to Pizza.

RedDeadFred:
Ok so recently there was a post that pointed out a review of Halo 4 which criticized the game for not having iron sights and not being linear enough. The reviewer gave the game a 7/10 which isn't a bad score, it's just that his complaints seemed ridiculous (my opinion, yours may differ).

Now this reviewer http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/11/04/halo-4-is-half-the-game-it-should-be/ has given Halo 4 a 2/10. Which in my mind means the game pretty much has to be broken but he doesn't say anything about it not working. These seem to be his primary reasons for the 2/10 score:
Too much like the past Halo games

Not enough like the past Halo games (yes I'm aware that these first two contradict each other)

You don't get to fire the big gun on the Mammoth

Enemies are Tron like

No scoring system in single-player (I agree with him on this, that's what made Halo 3's campaign so replayable)

AI's having a lifespan

The story is slow, sentimental and too serious

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.

I don't know if this has been adressed already but Tom Chick does a 5 star scale. Not a 10.

Edit:

It's also worth noting that the scale employed by Chick runs like this:

Here is the scientific breakdown for the Quarter to Three ratings system.

***** (5 stars)
I loved it

**** (4 stars)
I really liked it

*** (3 stars)
I liked it

** (2 stars)
I didn't like it

* (1 star)
I hated it

All the people who bang on about it should read that. In this scale a game is not broken with a single star. He just hated it. That's vastly different and shifts the conversation. This is not and never was about an objective analyses of graphics and sound and whatever else boring criteria you people seem to like. This is about how Tom Chick feels about the game.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked