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.
Halo 4 gets a 2/10...
- Thread starter RedDeadFred
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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.
Mass Effect 3 was NOT a huge disappointment. If you honestly believe the last 10 minutes ruined the game I feel sorry for you.BloatedGuppy said:
Besides, I couldn't give less of a **** about what some dude thinks about some game (the reviewer that is).
Ah. Thanks for the interesting insights! Also, I know he uses a grading scale of 5 but he gave it 1 star only which translated to 20% on Metacritic. Not sure why I picked 2/10 over his actual score or just the Metacritic percentage though.Venin said:
A completely fair criticism, games to similar tend to get stale...RedDeadFred said:
What.
Oh cry me a river. At least you get to drive it. How many FPS's even let you in vechiles now-adays?
The AI has never been that good in these games, although that still is legitement problem.
Also a fair problem.
I'm... what? I don't even have a clue what that means.
Oh no, a game has a half-way descent story that has actual pacing, oh the horror!
To be fair, I never really liked the Halo games, so much wrong with modern FPS's got there start in Combat Evolved. Still, a 2? A five, a completely average score I can understand. Was it physically painful to play and programmed by eight year olds? No? Then it does not deserve a 2.
Based on your generic "Haha I can use sarcasm" post, I'm going to bet you just read the title of this thread and didn't actually read what the post was about. He isn't complaining that someone gave the game a bad score, he's pointing out that it's probably just for publicity and the review itself makes no sense.4RM3D said:
No, the terribly uneven game ruined the game. The last 10 minutes just put a period on it.freaper said:
Says the guy sharing his opinions on games in a public space. Your total lack of interest and respect for the opinions of others is really refreshing. Must be a point of pride for you.freaper said:
well ive never played the game and dont plan to, as ive never enjoyed the halo series. however, it goes without saying that the score is unfair. seems like this person is calling the came uninspired and mediocre. thats not a 2. given his arguments id say a 5 or maybe even a 4 would be fair. certainly not a 2 though
Opinions can be wrong. They can also be ignorant. And judging by the review itself, the author didn't really give much of a reason as to why he rated the game so low other than, "I've done this before."snowbear said: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
He starts the review off with the title that says "Halo 4 is half the game it should be" and then doesn't go into what half of the game was missing. He instead whines about not being able to shoot the gun mounted on the Mammoth. I don't know about you, but complaining for two paragraphs about not being able to shoot a gun in the beginning of a game seems petty.
He also had a little cryfest about the replacement of Firefight mode. He then doesn't even describe in any detail what he doesn't like about Spartan Ops, the aforementioned replacement.
It was more whining and less actual review of the game, and that's what has people calling this reviewer out.
So yeah, I think his opinion can be called less "valid" as he didn't actually state that the game played horribly. In fact he didn't really talk about him playing the game at all.
You know my negative review of My Little Pony which pushed me into temporary retirement had a lot of accusations of just making a negative review of a popular item for attention. I really wish i had this review to reference so i could show them what such a review actually looks like. Then again, someone criticizing the lack of a scoring system and saying the story is to sentimental and serious almost makes it sound like Halo 4 might be better than Halo 3, but the review clearly isn't valid so i'll just wait for either the Zero Punctuation review or check it out on Blistered Thumbs.
Oh, this is the guy who gave Max Payne 3 a ridiculously low score while having opinions which contradicted the score. Yeah, low scores are fine - I quite enjoy them, actually - but goddamn it, if you don't have text which backs up the score there's no point scoring the game in the first place!
There's a difference between people who genuinely loathe a game, and people who just want to upset Metacritic's rankings, or want to disagree to cause trouble. This guy doesn't really think Halo 4 is worth 2/10 - he's giving it that score because that is what best suits him, whether it nets him more traffic or gets him more comments or... anything. If he gave reasons that made me think, "yeah, I can see how your opinion would measure 2/10," I'd be okay with this. ...but he's not making a good argument.
There's a difference between people who genuinely loathe a game, and people who just want to upset Metacritic's rankings, or want to disagree to cause trouble. This guy doesn't really think Halo 4 is worth 2/10 - he's giving it that score because that is what best suits him, whether it nets him more traffic or gets him more comments or... anything. If he gave reasons that made me think, "yeah, I can see how your opinion would measure 2/10," I'd be okay with this. ...but he's not making a good argument.
More hits didn't help Ian Miles when he wrote that article about KSI. More hits kind of ruined that guy's credibility.kortin said:
And judging by what people are saying on this forum and on the website itself, it won't help this Tom Chick person either.
Even Jim Sterling backed off of his usual trollish style reviews a bit when he rated Assassin`s Creed 2 with the infamous 4.5/10 for reasons like "I wish that the quick travel system was better because walking in this game is boring"(paraphrased), or "climbing buildings isn't fast enough."
Point is, this guy may get hits now, but he just drove off hits for any future reviews he does for a while.
This is the same guy who tried to call the original Dues Ex a bad game when it came out...
Agreed %100 percent. People need to realize that bad reviews do exist and that the "it's their opinion so you can't judge them" shield doesn't work in all cases.Andy of Comix Inc said: