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.
Halo 4 gets a 2/10...
- Thread starter RedDeadFred
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
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.
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.AnarchistFish said:
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...
Think I'm joking? One of the complaints that Jim had was that Ezio didn't climb up buildings fast enough...
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.Sidney Buit said:
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.
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!)
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!)
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?)BiscuitTrouser said:
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.
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.AnarchistFish said:
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.
Sometimes they did drag on..Sidney Buit said:
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.Sidney Buit said:
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.freaper said:
So the guy can criticize the game but no one can criticize his review? Kind of ass backwards thinking, don't you think?snowbear said:
Not even a Halo fan but 2/10 is a troll rating, and it'll be called as such.
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.
Nope. The series has always had aiming either through a scope or through a zoom function on the visor.Daniel Ferguson said:
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!?".
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!?".
This is just an update, now that I've actually played Halo 4.Doomsdaylee said:
The reviewer is absolutely full of shit with respect to how the AI-decay was presented.
Spoiler alert:
You notice very early in the game that Cortana is acting a little...strange, and she at first shrugs it off. Later, she finally says what is wrong, using almost the EXACT same language as the Halo books to describe in short what happens to AIs at our current technological level. A person who has never read the books would not be lost as to what is happening.
First she says her age (8 years), and then says that AI's start to go rampant after 7. Master Chief is in denial, saying that if they can just go back to Dr. Halsey (the creator of the Spartans, detailed in the opening cutscene, and also the brain from which Cortana's artificial network was replicated) that they might be able to do something about it.
Later, when MC keeps reassuring her that she'll be fine, she asks, "Chief, do you even know what Rampancy is?" And then gives a sci-fi but logical explanation followed by "We literally THINK ourselves to death."
First she says her age (8 years), and then says that AI's start to go rampant after 7. Master Chief is in denial, saying that if they can just go back to Dr. Halsey (the creator of the Spartans, detailed in the opening cutscene, and also the brain from which Cortana's artificial network was replicated) that they might be able to do something about it.
Later, when MC keeps reassuring her that she'll be fine, she asks, "Chief, do you even know what Rampancy is?" And then gives a sci-fi but logical explanation followed by "We literally THINK ourselves to death."
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.
Criticise as much as you like it doesn't make him any more wrong or right, it's his opinion and it's just as valid as yours. Which in my opinion makes bashing the guy repeatedly utterly pointless. But hey it's my opinionAzrealMaximillion said:
Anyway
Back to halo
The reviewer obviously just didn't play the game.RedDeadFred said:
First way to tell so? Calling the story slow. It moves VERY fast, but not overly fast thankfully. Second way to tell? That big gun? Yeah, I'm sorry but I remember shooting it a few times. I want to know how he even finished that level without shooting it, because the game clearly doesn't even let you continue till you use it.
I have a feeling this site is like another site, one that I actually had the displeasure to work for. I was unable to finish the product by the date they needed the review in (due to a problem on their side. They lost the CD key >_> Pushing me back by an entire day. In a two day project.) So you know what they did? They ended up telling me to just read other people's reviews and form an opinion; which is what it looks like this website did. Also, just a heads up, the grade scale is out of 5, not out of 10.
...worst part of that little story? I ended up giving the game a bad review, because the game was TERRIBLE (from what I did play) and he ended up cutting out every negative part of what I wrote, then just threw in a few false positive comments and gave it an 8/10...oh, by the way, the game was Alpha Protocol. Yeah...gave it a 8/10 because they were afraid of not getting more free review copies. They used it to buff their personal stash...and I have a feeling this site is the opposite extreme. They don't want to write a review, they just want to get paid, so they slap together other site's reviews.
Metacritic has weighed scoring precisely to deal with outliers like this.RedDeadFred said:
One critic with a personal grudge cannot singly screw the score by 10% by giving a wildly out of touch score. And the number enetered by metacritic often isn't even te number they list, but rather infer the number from the text of their review.