He also says that ME3 is "every bit as good as the original Knights of the Old Republic." Excuse me while I hurl.Deadlywere said:
Halo 4 gets a 2/10...
- Thread starter RedDeadFred
- Start date
Recommended Videos
2/10 strikes me as 'needs to have a serious flaw'
Like an unintended instadeath mechanic that lets you walk through walls and clip through to the end boss in the second room.
4/10 or 5/10 is 'lacks innovation'. Like I think was being said here.
Obviously all reviewing is subjective to the user but this seems... a bit like an attention grab.
Like an unintended instadeath mechanic that lets you walk through walls and clip through to the end boss in the second room.
4/10 or 5/10 is 'lacks innovation'. Like I think was being said here.
Obviously all reviewing is subjective to the user but this seems... a bit like an attention grab.
Not really.alphamalet said:
First of all, saying 9's and 10's are handed out too often is false. It has just been so that here in the last two years, we - as gamers - have been treated to a lot of actually GOOD games. The games that get 9's or 10's these days generally get so because they're really worth it. I just purchased Dishonored and XCOM: Enemy Unknown for PC two weeks ago (Metascores 92 and 89) and both games have been a really good experience. Mass Effect 3 was also great (except the ending, but the gameplay up to that point was the best in the series).
Secondly, games scores - unlike movies, music and books - needs to take into account buggy and unplayable games. If you purchase a brand new book or DVD movie, you can be sure that if the movie won't play or the book catches fire, the fault is either that your DVD player is broken or that you shouldn't play with fire, and the fault is not in the product you purchased. Games aren't like that. Game scores needs to reserve space in the lower end of the scale for games that constantly bugs out or crashes (on top of being just "bad"). Even games with downright terrible gameplay and story are still gonna appeal to some people if they don't crash all the time, which is why a score of around 6 (and not 5) should be mean "average" when talking games.
Since i doubt Halo 4 is a game that is holed with bugs all over (and i also doubt the gameplay is downright terrible, even if it's like the earlier games in the series), a 2/10 score just shows that the reviewer is incompetent or doesn't understand his own job. Nothing more.
Very true. Judging by the user reviews on Metacritic, they were not able to prevent a very large portion of the fanboys from doing that...Blargh McBlargh said:
I disagree with this notion. Sure if you find bugs in a game, then that's a fact and can't be debated (though others may not have found those same bugs. But all that matters in your review is your experience, so everyone else is irrelevant). However, the subjective part here is how much those bugs damage your opinion of the game. Want to see evidence of this at work? Search for almost any thread about Obsidian or Bethesda games on here. Among people who experienced bugs in those games, you'll see a wild variance in how those bugs hindered their experience. Reviewing games is subjective. Period.Athinira said:
The real point that should be driven home is this...
If people here truly want reviewers to use the full scale, then we have to accept that sometimes games we light might get trashed. I'm not saying we shouldn't question the points (not the points as in the score, but what the reviewer states he has an issue with) in the review. But simply calling them a troll and outright dismissing them just makes us look like hypocritical children.BloatedGuppy said:
I want you to name 5 AAA games off the top of your head that got an aggregate of 7/10 or below. I bet you can't do it quickly. Now name 5 AAA games that got at least a 7/10. A lot, and somehow I don't think that every AAA game that gets released deserves that sort of overwhelming positive praise. Yes, positive scores are given out far more liberally than negative ones, especially when you look at the score disparity between your average movie review, and your average game review.Athinira said:
Yes, games are different than movies, but I don't see what point you're trying to make here. You wouldn't review a music album the same way you would review a movie. Of course you don't review a game the same way you review a movie. What does that prove? The scores of the reviews take into account things like bugs in a game. Why in the hell would there be a minimum score guarantee for a game that is technically proficient and bug free? What difference should that make? A terrible game is terrible, with or without bugs.
And again, in what universe is a 5/10 not average? The mean (average) of all numbers between 0-10 is 5. 5 is the average. How does 6=average or 7=average?
Yes, clearly the reviewer misinterpreted his own opinion. Reviews are not meant to be uniform, or validate someone's opinion.
LostintheWick said:
Given how long Tom Chick has been posting reviews, I wouldn't call him an amateur, per se...
And, reading his review, I do feel that he does have a few points.
That's a very biased test you're putting up there. People remember the games the like better than the games that are terrible (typically because they didn't buy the latter). Sure we all remember games that we tried and found terrible, but that's the exception rather than the rule. We mostly remember games we liked, and we mostly read reviews about games we suspect we'll like which tend to have a higher metascore.alphamalet said:
In short, your test is useless because it's scientifically unbiased.
Like i said, no matter how terrible you personally feel a game is, if it's bug-free and in a playable state, there will always be people who are into this sort of thing.
To give a similar example, go read Robert Eberts review of "The Human Centipede". In his 50+ years career as a movie reviewer, this movie was the first review ever where he decided not to assign the movie a score. He thought the movie was distasteful, but didn't want to give it a thumbs down because he knew that the film had a decent sized target audience who were into that sort of thing.
Same thing can be said about Halo 4. You can say it lacks innovation or in story, but fact is that there is a lot of people who are still into the genre, and - having played it earlier today - i can say that it displays adequate (but not outstanding) design that delivers on that promise. Different opinions are different, but the reviewer in question here has clearly failed to keep perspective.
Because it's a scale (from "terrible" to "awesome"). 5.0 is the MIDDLE score. That doesn't mean it's the average score. If more games (or movies or whatever) come out that are good than bad, then the average score is obviously not going to be 5.0.
The review system is not a zero sum system, and never was intended to be.
I didn't say he misinterpreted his own opinion. I said he didn't understand how to use a score system properly. I'd hate to see the day he gets a hold of a game that is truly terrible in every single aspect (so dreadful that he would be willing to PAY money to not play it), because i suspect he would have to blow his own 0-10 scale then and give it a negative score. As a reviewer, if you use a detailed score system, you need to consider what headroom the score you assign leaves for better a worse products. In the case of Halo 4, you can get something that is far beyond worse.
So a guy gave Halo 4 a 2/10... so? There's alot of other people who have their say and I don't think you need to beat this guy over the head so much because of it. Not that I'm saying you absolutely shouldn't do that but this kinda feels like a waste.
In regards to a logical rating system, here's a simple one to follow:
Take 4 categories (Gameplay, Visuals, Sounds, Story, etc.)
Each category can be rated between 1-10
Add all categories scores together then divide by 4.
You get your final score.
Gameplay 6
Visuals 5
Sound 8
Story 4
Overall Score 5.75
Simple.
In regards to a logical rating system, here's a simple one to follow:
Take 4 categories (Gameplay, Visuals, Sounds, Story, etc.)
Each category can be rated between 1-10
Add all categories scores together then divide by 4.
You get your final score.
Gameplay 6
Visuals 5
Sound 8
Story 4
Overall Score 5.75
Simple.
Even assuming he isn't a troll, the fact that this one "internet celebrity's" review is getting such attention shows how easy it WOULD be to troll people.DustyDrB said:
Think for yourselves for a change.
Christ.
Well a numbered rating is inherently flawed, so I am not going to comment on whether I found the score correct or not. But, my personal opinion would be 'extremely unfavourable' because I'm quite frankly, sick of Halo.
objective...review...*sigh*LostintheWick said:
Is it really that hard to read a thread, or type someone's name into a search engine? Chick is probably one of the highest profile reviewers in the industry. You and I are internet nobodies. Go start a blog and write a troll review. We'll see how much attention you get. Spoiler: virtually none.Atmos Duality said:
I don't care if this guy is the Roger Ebert of the internet, if people are getting this upset over a simple dissenting review, I weep for our future.BloatedGuppy said:
I'm just correcting your misapprehension. If I get a fact wrong, and someone corrects me on my incorrect fact, I usually say "thanks" and move on with life. I don't get defensive and claim I "don't care" about facts. You can mock people for getting upset at a dissenting review all you want, they deserve it.Atmos Duality said:
I just saw some ingame footage on Jimquisition, and I noticed that it looks A LOT like Metroid Prime. With the visible helmet perspective and the enemy behaviour.
Oh no, he didn't like a game. And he scored it accordingly.
His reasons for disliking the game are totally incongruous with ours - which makes his review unconvincing and safe to disregard as consumer advice - but I don't really give a shit if he doesn't like it.
His reasons for disliking the game are totally incongruous with ours - which makes his review unconvincing and safe to disregard as consumer advice - but I don't really give a shit if he doesn't like it.
If he's popular, fine. He's popular. I'll change my post if it makes you happy.BloatedGuppy said:
This is why I don't want to bother with this site anymore. People jump down my throat for the smallest fucking things.
I get defensive because I am sick and fucking tired of it; I'm tired of the passive-aggressive tone everyone loves to sling around here. Lots of White Knights and nitpicking assholes.
If that wasn't your intended tone, then I'm sorry.
At least my original point survived this mess.