Halo 4 gets a 2/10...

[Daniel Ferguson]

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

 

[UberNoodle]

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.

 

[AnarchistFish]

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

 

[AnarchistFish]

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.

 

[RaikuFA]

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.

 

[Nadia Castle]

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.

 

[freaper]

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.

 

[FEichinger]

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.

 

[Sidmen]

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...

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

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...

 

[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.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

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.

 

[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!)

 

[perkl]

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



When instead it should be.

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.

 

[Sidmen]

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.

 

[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..

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.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

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.

 

[AzrealMaximillion]

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.