Halo 4 gets a 2/10...
- Thread starter RedDeadFred
- Start date
Recommended Videos
What's this lifespan thing? I haven't played Halo since 2 so maybe I don't remember but lifespans sound interesting.erttheking said:
OT: The cynic in me would agree he's just trolling for hits. Unless the game doesn't function I don't think a 2/10 is really ever justified, even for games I hate.
Those are reasons for giving a game a 2/10?RedDeadFred said:
I know people are entitles to their opinion and all, but... really?
"Smart" AIs unlike their counterparts "Dumb" AIs can only live for 7 years as they begin to think themselves to death and begin to turn off functions to prolong rampancy but it only helps fuel it. Cortana in 4 has begun rampancy as she has past her life span.Ilikemilkshake said:
Ahh.. That explains what was going on in with Cortana in Forward Unto Dawn. ThanksKorten12 said:
Well, the reviewer blatantly admits in a follow-up to his Journey review that he doesn't review games objectively, so there's that. That wouldn't be so bad if the writing for the review wasn't absolute trash. Buddy went to Harvard and he thinks using words like big-ass, douchebag and eff off are acceptable? 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.
This doesn't really surprise me, however. He's admitted to have been fired twice as a reviewer and it's apparent as to why. He has some semblance of knowledge of the industry if his top ten list is any indication but the fact that he feels being objective in a review doesn't make a review it's clear why he's where he is.
This doesn't really surprise me, however. He's admitted to have been fired twice as a reviewer and it's apparent as to why. He has some semblance of knowledge of the industry if his top ten list is any indication but the fact that he feels being objective in a review doesn't make a review it's clear why he's where he is.
This is the equivalent of rating a cigar and then slamming it because you inhaled the smoke and started coughing.
Must be a bad cigar, yes sir. Surely there are better cigars suited for his lungs. Let's try some smoke free ones!
Methinks he missed some of the finer points. Like, oh, I don't know, the importance and reception of the maiden voyage that is 343i's first game? How well the shooting fares? What the new weapons and enemies contribute to the tactics pool? How the story fares in continuity? Are the MP game types unique and well thought out? The taste and quality of the cigar? Is the Forge Mode any good? Anything anyone will actually care about?
It comes out tomorrow, and if I find the game isn't horrendously broken, then I might never see this reviewer as credible again. Which is just as well, because I've never actually heard of him. I don't even know who this guy is.
Ooh, look! The Chief's back. Better kill some aliens and get to not afraiding of anything.
Must be a bad cigar, yes sir. Surely there are better cigars suited for his lungs. Let's try some smoke free ones!
Methinks he missed some of the finer points. Like, oh, I don't know, the importance and reception of the maiden voyage that is 343i's first game? How well the shooting fares? What the new weapons and enemies contribute to the tactics pool? How the story fares in continuity? Are the MP game types unique and well thought out? The taste and quality of the cigar? Is the Forge Mode any good? Anything anyone will actually care about?
It comes out tomorrow, and if I find the game isn't horrendously broken, then I might never see this reviewer as credible again. Which is just as well, because I've never actually heard of him. I don't even know who this guy is.
Ooh, look! The Chief's back. Better kill some aliens and get to not afraiding of anything.
It's not the most professional review but I can relate to some of his complaints. I've always enjoyed Halo but there are certain things that the review touches upon like the over-sentimentality and over-seriousness of the story and characters that I've always found quite grating.
Although I do find it a bit strange that the reviewer singles out Halo 4 for this as, to my knowledge, every Halo has done this.
I wonder what will happen to 343 if they don't achieve a favourable metacritic score? Maybe Microsoft will take away their pensions or force them to make XBL avatar Kinect adventures for the rest of their lives. I think that sounds fair.
Although I do find it a bit strange that the reviewer singles out Halo 4 for this as, to my knowledge, every Halo has done this.
I wonder what will happen to 343 if they don't achieve a favourable metacritic score? Maybe Microsoft will take away their pensions or force them to make XBL avatar Kinect adventures for the rest of their lives. I think that sounds fair.
Yeaaaah, a number of those points are positives in my mind....... 2/10 is just silly.
I can agree with him not being too pleased about it being about master chief, I wasn't either. However complaining about how it is covering the same thing and then holding up borderlands 2 as something you could be doing instead, seems a tad strange.
I can agree with him not being too pleased about it being about master chief, I wasn't either. However complaining about how it is covering the same thing and then holding up borderlands 2 as something you could be doing instead, seems a tad strange.
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.
Scoring non-objective reviews seems a bit strange though, score are viewed objectively. Clearly likes the attention it gets him.
The guy is trolling.RedDeadFred said:
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...
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.xshadowscreamx said:
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 said:
Pandabearparade said:
HellsingerAngel said:
Radoh said:
Tdoodle said:
Ed130 said:
Uh...guys...Hixy said:
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.
Considering that Halo games have never had iron-sight aiming, I'm surprised the first reviewer counted that as something detracting from the game.
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.
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.
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.Baldr said:
You're assuming there was a lack of objectivity because his opinion deviates from yours.