Halo 4 gets a 2/10...

[Batou667]

How are those two different? If there's nothing original, it's just a $60 DLC.

Well, it's possible to have a very good game that is only an incremental improvement over its prequel or the "industry standard" (See: most Street Fighter games, Pokemon, Fifa, CoD...) but still good enough to appeal to fans of the genre, and it's also possible to have hugely innovative games which are fundamentally broken in some way or just not much fun. It's nice when a game is both good and innovative, but the two aren't necessarily the same.

I appreciate that games as a whole need a degree of innovation to progress but that doesn't mean every game ought to be an innovator. This is an industry big enough for both flawed gems and highly-polished but safe examples.

 

[perkl]

Completely disagree, I'm afraid. I don't like change for the sake of change - if you've got no reason to change your game, by all means keep the core formula the same.

Dude, you'll have to trawl harder if you expect to catch anything.

If it's about the rating system, a 2/10 is his own subjective judgement of the game. I haven't read the review, but if he gave the game a 2/10 from an objective point of view, the man should be fired and burned hard.

Why on earth? 2/10 should mean "just like the previous one in series without any technical flaws". Then you'd have a meaningful scale.

 

[repeating integers]

Completely disagree, I'm afraid. I don't like change for the sake of change - if you've got no reason to change your game, by all means keep the core formula the same.

Dude, you'll have to trawl harder if you expect to catch anything.

Erm.

OK, then.

...What are you blithering on about?

 

[snowbear]

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.

It's not really about not agreeing with the reviewer, it's that this reviewer uses a completely different system than the standard or even non-standard ones, on top of letting his views permeate where a good journalist would not.

Standard: 70% is an average game, a passing grade, and 9/10 is a great game.

Non-standard: 50% is an average game, one that is playable but not amazing, and 70%+ are for good/great games.

A score of 2/10 or 1 star out of 5 implies to anyone that uses the standard or non-standard system (That is, FREAKING EVERYONE) that the game is fundamentally broken, that it is not only not fun to the reviewer but that it wouldn't be fun to fans of the series or fun to, well, basically anyone. Not only that, such a low score generally means that the game is unplayable, that it suffers from such massive glitches that it is on a level close to Big Rigs.

If a game was broken then I would hope it would get 0 stars. My interpretation of a star based scoring system is (not that I believe we should have a scoring system in the first place)

0 - Terrible, not worth anyone's time or money (possibly broken)
1 - Bad, if your a fan of the series or genre you might find some enjoyment
2 - Ok, doesn't really do anything to shine but not really bad
3 - Good, if your a fan of the series or genre then its a must buy or rent
4 - Great, even if your not a fan of the genre you should check it out
5 - Masterpiece, every body should check it out at least once, as a piece of art it will stand the test of time

That's how I see the rating scale used for films and I see it as the same for games. Would you give one star to a movie that was broken, no you wouldn't you simply would give it 0 and warn people off of it.

 

[perkl]

Well, it's possible to have a very good game that is only an incremental improvement over its prequel

No, it's really not. Just like it's not possible to tell the same joke over and over and expect it to be as funny every time. If you're remaking the same game 15 years later and the only difference is more lens flare and curved surfaces the game deserves to be murdered in reviews. Unfortunately that aptly describes 90% of the games and reviewers are apparently satisfied to keep playing the same shit over and over and over again. It's telling that a remake of Half-Life 1 gets 90% scores.

 

[ZehMadScientist]

If it's about the rating system, a 2/10 is his own subjective judgement of the game. I haven't read the review, but if he gave the game a 2/10 from an objective point of view, the man should be fired and burned hard.

Why on earth? 2/10 should mean "just like the previous one in series without any technical flaws". Then you'd have a meaningful scale.

You're a harsh one, ain't ya? Let's say someone who's never played a Halo game before walks in and decides to buy Halo 4, would a 2/10 be a proper indicator of the game's quality?

 

[chadachada123]

=AI's having a lifespan=
Ok, people bring up "this was established in the book, wah."...Ok...well, that's stupid. Why, in the name of Inari's pale ass, would you put in stuff from the BOOKS as something VITAL TO THE PLOT!? Well, clearly then, all the fanfictions about My Little Pony are true, and all the characters are dead, gay, and...
You see my point here? Books published by the developers are little more than fan-fics and if they're written by the writers, it's still stupid, and egotistcal for the devs to EXPECT everyone to have read their "totTally Awezome bookz yo!"
Oh, and yes, AI having a life-span is kinda dumb, in my opinion.

You don't know what "canon" is, do you? You saying that the Halo books aren't canonical is the equivalent of saying that the backstory listed in the instruction manual is just "little more than fan-fic[ion]."

One of the CREATORS OF HALO says that the books are, almost entirely, canonical, with the only exceptions being stuff that is overridden in the games or in later books. The games are based around the Halo universe that is further explained by the books.

Joseph Staten:

The books are, for better or worse, part of the canon. In the future we may choose to revise or flat-out ignore some of the less appealing ideas (Johnson's biological immunity to the Flood, for example), but folks should treat them as defining elements of the Halo universe.

http://halostory.bungie.org/staten102204.html

The books are for people that are interested in the world that Bungie has created, like the Codex entries in Mass Effect. They are not at ALL necessary to understand the game's story, but are there for people that WANT to know more.

To put it another way, with respect to MLP: If Hasbro or Studio B gives out a promotional material to explain a bit of the Equestrian universe, it is canon. This map, produced by Hasbro, is a part of the universe, even though it wasn't included in the show:

http://pixelkitties.deviantart.com/art/Hi-Resolution-Equestria-Map-318946279

To bring it back, what, exactly, is your problem with AI's having a lifespan or its inclusion in the game? Just because a book put it in first? It's not like you have to read the books to understand pretty much any of Halo's story, let alone such a simple concept as "Artificial Intelligences go crazy after typically 7 or so years." You don't have to go reading up on Quantum Mechanics to get something that takes less than a sentence to explain.

 

[lord.jeff]

Well, it's possible to have a very good game that is only an incremental improvement over its prequel

No, it's really not. Just like it's not possible to tell the same joke over and over and expect it to be as funny every time. If you're remaking the same game 15 years later and the only difference is more lens flare and curved surfaces the game deserves to be murdered in reviews. Unfortunately that aptly describes 90% of the games and reviewers are apparently satisfied to keep playing the same shit over and over and over again. It's telling that a remake of Half-Life 1 gets 90% scores.

Would you say a donkey turd pizza is better then a pepperoni pizza just because it's more innovative?

Completely disagree, I'm afraid. I don't like change for the sake of change - if you've got no reason to change your game, by all means keep the core formula the same.

Dude, you'll have to trawl harder if you expect to catch anything.

You do realize your extreme opinion makes you look at least a big a troll then him?

OT:Who gives a shit if a random guy rates a game low it won't hurt your feelings about the game unless you let it.

 

[perkl]

You're a harsh one, ain't ya?

Moon is a harsh mistress.

Let's say someone who's never played a Halo game before walks in and decides to buy Halo 4, would a 2/10 be a proper indicator of the game's quality?

More or less. It's the seventh game in the franchise and not even as good as the previous ones despite not bringing much of anything new to the table. Why should a turd like that get 80-90%? Because the previous games were good?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

 

[Batou667]

No, it's really not. Just like it's not possible to tell the same joke over and over and expect it to be as funny every time. If you're remaking the same game 15 years later and the only difference is more lens flare and curved surfaces the game deserves to be murdered in reviews. Unfortunately that aptly describes 90% of the games and reviewers are apparently satisfied to keep playing the same shit over and over and over again. It's telling that a remake of Half-Life 1 gets 90% scores.

Yikes. Are you this critical of all media and entertainment?

I can just imagine you storming out of a movie theatre. "What derivative dross! This is just a variation the Journey/Quest archetype with the giant robots representing his inner demons and the talking monkey being a hackneyed audience surrogate device! Experimental arthouse or GTFO!"

At the heart of literature and cinema are really quite a limited number of stories to be told, the real test isn't so much in the originality but the skill of the actors, the artistic flair of the director, and so on. In videogameland we've perhaps been spoiled by the endless supply of innovation that was suggested by the developing artform but as graphical muscle plateaus off and as long as we're limited to mouse-and-keyboard or twin-stick control schemes, we're actually restricted more than you might think.

 

[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.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

At the heart of literature and cinema are really quite a limited number of stories to be told...

I agree. I think there's an argument to be made around derivative mechanics, though, as that is an area in which games tend to become unnecessarily stagnant.

 

[perkl]

Yikes. Are you this critical of all media and entertainment?

Yes. Why should music or books get a free pass when video games don't?

I think you're selling art in general short. Just because movies and TV are mostly shit it doesn't mean everything has to be. Hell, there are even great movies. But I'll be damned if I'm going to praise derivative crap just because the previous movie was great.

as long as we're limited to mouse-and-keyboard or twin-stick control schemes, we're actually restricted more than you might think.

Riddle me this: why is AAA gaming so derivative and indie gaming so innovative, if both share the same control schemes?

 

[Conner42]

I don't understand what people are complaining about, he argued his points fairly well. A game doesn't have to be broken to be bad. Not to say that this game is bad, but he has good reasons for not liking the game though.

Sometimes, a game needs a good and hard kick in the ass if it's going to pull the "no reason to exist" bullshit, which it sounds like this guy is complaining about. Is it unfair that we expect something slightly new and different when they decide to pull out another game?

I'm not going to give my full input on the game until I actually play it. But, going off of this review it seems like you'll either like this game because it's more of the same or not like it because it's more of the same. Though, other reviews have been generally positive.

 

[Batou667]

I think you're selling art in general short. Just because movies and TV are mostly shit it doesn't mean everything has to be. Hell, there are even great movies. But I'll be damned if I'm going to praise derivative crap just because the previous movie was great.

That's one way of looking at it. Personally, I don't think every form of media needs to be the pinnacle of the artform to be enjoyable. If I can sit in a cinema and watch men in tights punching exploding robots for two hours, then I can play a "dumb fun" videogame and enjoy it without grinding my teeth to stumps fretting that there might be a more highbrow game out there that I'm missing out on.

Riddle me this: why is AAA gaming so derivative and indie gaming so innovative, if both share the same control schemes?

Now I suspect you're just yanking my chain. Every second indie game has "zombie" or "tower defence" in its title.

Anyway, I'd guess it's a money thing. Indie games can afford to be experimental since there's so little at stake (but make no mistake, some of the most unimaginative crap I've ever played has been indie shovelware), whereas an AAA game needs mass-market appeal.

 

[ZehMadScientist]

More or less. It's the seventh game in the franchise and not even as good as the previous ones despite not bringing much of anything new to the table. Why should a turd like that get 80-90%? Because the previous games were good?

I'm not saying that the game should get a near perfect score, I just think that a 2 out of 10 is way too harsh on a game that is not inherently flawed. It works, whether it is original or not.

Why should the quality of a game be based on whether or not someone's played the earlier ones? Doesn't the fact that it's a sequel kind of tell you that it should be building off earlier groundwork?

Here's an example: A Straw Dogs remake came out a little while ago. If someone hasn't seen the original film, I imagine seeing this will be a tense, entertaining experience. If you have seen the original though? It's a pile of wank. The remake offers nothing that the original didn't already do, and much better than that. The acting is better, the action more tense and shocking, the direction handled with more intelligence.

If you hadn't seen the original, then perhaps you'd enjoy the remake. But that still doesn't change the fact that the remake is clearly an inferior product to the original film.

That's the problem: You can't ignore what a previous game did when reviewing it's follow up. You can't praise a game for something that its predecessors invented. When Halo 3 came out with Forge, that was pretty praiseworthy. Halo 4? It's the third Halo game to come with Forge. You don't get brownie points for that anymore. If Halo 4 wants to win praise, then it has to bring something to that table of its own, not something that was introduced one or two instalments back.

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 >.>)

I hated the Last Airbender movie. If I had to grade it, would I give it a 2/10? I'd be tempted to, but I have to acknowledge that the special effects were nice and the acting was actually decent. So I'd at least give it credit for that.

So I agree with you that while reviewing a game, you should certainly keep predating works in mind. However, you should judge a game by its own merits as well, no matter how similar they may be. It's a case of review by comparison if you ask me. There is no way you can review Portal 2 without comparing it to the original Portal. Doesn't change the fact that Portal 2 was flippin' amazing.

But a 2/10 for merely being too similar to its predecessor is bonkers.

 

[drummond13]

I have wondered why this guy's reviews are on Metacritic for a while now. They're not badly written, but they're not very good either and often come from a personal bias. He slammed The Secret World as well. While that's far from a perfect game, most of his critiques were about the game's bugs. Virtually every bug he mentioned was fixed in less than a week. The guy's a joke as a reviewer.

 

[Vausch]

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

What about Amy? Or Superman 64?

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.