Halo 4 gets a 2/10...

[alphamalet]

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

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.

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.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

A 2/10 score really stands out on Metacritic so my review will get more traffic (oh wait, that's my assumption not his written reasoning)

A 2/10? Unless it's broken that's just trolling for hits.

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.

Well now I've got another sensationalist reviewer that's going to be ignored right alongside Razorfist.

Clearly likes the attention it gets him.

The guy is trolling.

Don't feed the troll, he wants attention thats all.

Uh...guys...

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.

 

[juyunseen]

and we're paying attention to him why? He wants metacritic traffic, just like you said.

 

[RJ 17]

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.

 

[Baldr]

A 2/10 score really stands out on Metacritic so my review will get more traffic (oh wait, that's my assumption not his written reasoning)

A 2/10? Unless it's broken that's just trolling for hits.

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.

Well now I've got another sensationalist reviewer that's going to be ignored right alongside Razorfist.

Clearly likes the attention it gets him.

The guy is trolling.

Don't feed the troll, he wants attention thats all.

Uh...guys...

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.

Tenured or not, rating something on pure opinion is unprofessional. I hate fighting and most strategy games. I'm pretty much going to hate these games, but I would give them the benefit and rate them technically.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Tenured or not, rating something on pure opinion is unprofessional. I hate fighting and most strategy games. I'm pretty much going to hate these games, but I would give them the benefit and rate them technically.

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.

You're assuming there was a lack of objectivity because his opinion deviates from yours.

 

[RedDeadFred]

A 2/10 score really stands out on Metacritic so my review will get more traffic (oh wait, that's my assumption not his written reasoning)

A 2/10? Unless it's broken that's just trolling for hits.

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.

Well now I've got another sensationalist reviewer that's going to be ignored right alongside Razorfist.

Clearly likes the attention it gets him.

The guy is trolling.

Don't feed the troll, he wants attention thats all.

Uh...guys...

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.

I see where you are coming from but in my mind (and pretty much everyone elses) a 2/10 means the game is practically unplayable. Now he knew his review would be posted on Metacritic and he probably knew that if he was marking off the same standards as everyone else the game would probably receive at least a 6 (if he's been around as long as you say he would know this) but he decides to go and give it a 2 anyway. Yes I want game journalists to tell me the truth and when the guy blatantly contradicts himself in his review that's when I doubt that he is telling the truth.

Sorry if this paragraph is messed up, I don't have time to check it over cause I gotta go to class.

 

[Tdoodle]

Mad

I'm all in favour of someone expressing their honest opinion, but that's clearly not what I was getting at. Scoring something that will be perceived objectively if it's not being reviewed objectively is odd. My issue wasn't that he gave Halo a bad score, it's that he gave it a score at all. And I can honestly think of no decent reason for giving something a score other than to draw attention to it, whether it's a good one or a bad one.

Whether or not he scored low to deliberately attract attention is something else entirely.

 

[HellsingerAngel]

Uh...guys...

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.

Glad to know someone gets an automatic pass because of his laurels and not his writing or opinion...

I never said he was trolling for attention, I said he made a terrible review and should be called out on it. His writing is sub-par and his opinion is slathered in personal bias which is a bad formula for doing a review on a game. On top of that, it's just and opinion rather than an informed opinion. If I want just and opinion, I could easily get one by going on 4chan. If I want an informed opinion I will go read a review by someone credible, to which you are claiming this reviewer is. Like I had said, he sounds like he knows the culture and the industry, but how he articulates this is ridiculously asinine and sounds like a thirteen year-old whining for no reason other than "I don't like this game".

And that would be the point. I would have no issues with someone bombing Halo 4 if they had reasoning behind it. He doesn't. Instead, the reviewer goes on for two paragraphs like a fuck twat, trying to sound cool and edgy, but comes out like a 9th grader in a creative writing class. This man, no matter what his acclaim is, writes like a child and shouldn't be excused for it! It doesn't matter who it is or what sort of reputation they have, good or bad, if they decide to articulate themselves like a child their review should be treated as such. He's a trash writer, the review deserves to be blamed into oblivion and he shouldn't write another review until he learns how the hell to do his God damn job!

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Yes I want game journalists to tell me the truth and when the guy blatantly contradicts himself in his review that's when I doubt that he is telling the truth.

Where do you see a contradiction? He seemed pretty on point about hating it from the beginning to the end of the review.

Scoring something that will be perceived objectively if it's not being reviewed objectively is odd.

Again, I'm not sure where this perception is coming from that he's not being objective.

From an interview he did a while back with Rock Paper Shotgun about his infamous Deus Ex review:

It?s sort of cute. We all have strong opinions about different things, and I?m lucky enough that some of those make an impression on people, for better or worse. But I do wish the reaction was to wonder *why* I didn?t like Deus Ex. Instead, it?s often just shorthand to dismiss something else I?ve written. ?Oh, he didn?t like Mass Effect 2? Well, he didn?t like Deus Ex either!? That?s just lazy and it ultimately hurts the level of discourse when we talk about videogames.

For instance, if I hear that someone doesn?t like Casablanca or Jaws or Moon, I want to know *why* he didn?t like it. Those are interesting conversations and at their best, we each learn something, even if it?s just about each other. But unfortunately, those are conversations missing in the internet videogame culture. People tend to judge opinions based not on their insight, but on whether they agree with that opinion. A good review isn?t a good review. It?s a review you agree with.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/06/29/tom-chick-the-man-who-hated-deus-ex/

Again, I'm a little disturbed by the automatic perception that a score is "not objective" if it falls outside the 7-10 range.

Instead, the reviewer goes on for two paragraphs like a fuck twat, trying to sound cool and edgy...

Is this irony?

I'm fairly certain this is irony.

 

[TakeshiLive]

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/

In any case, that's a strange list he's got which in my opinion means that he's got some weird standards

 

[Canadamus Prime]

Ok what? To deserve a 2/10 the game would have to be pretty broken and borderline unplayable.

 

[SecondPrize]

Didn't click the link because that's what he wants. A review attached to a score this low, for a game for which no one else has sounded any alarms, cannot be taken seriously and does not even merit attention. Yes, you may hold an opinion which differs from the rest of the pack. No you shouldn't pull stunts like this for traffic.

 

[snowbear]

If people actually read the whole review he actually states a lot that he doesn't like about the game. Not just the points that people seem to be focusing on.

- Features missing
- lack of replayablity in single player
- Multiplayer becoming more like a certain other franchise
- New weapons are just copy and pasted with re-skins
- Didn't like the aesthetics
- Didn't like or enjoy the story
- New enemies are re-skins with slightly new abilities

Sounds to me like he really didn't enjoy the game so a 1 star review seems fine to me. I don't agree with him personally but its his opinion. There are plenty of games I don't like and would probably only give 1 star *cough* skyrim *cough*

I think your reviews of his review seem a bit unfair

 

[Waaghpowa]

This is part of the reason I lost my taste for Halo.

People hating on it all the time.

Fans get worked up over review scores because they think it's the second coming of Christ and deserves to be revered as such.

P.S I agree with this guy

Again, I'm a little disturbed by the automatic perception that a score is "not objective" if it falls outside the 7-10 range.

 

[peruvianskys]

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.

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.

I agree; a game that does nothing to innovate, expand, refine, or entice gives no reason for anyone to play it. A 2/10 reflects that perfectly. From the little I've seen of Halo 4, I cannot think of one aspect of it I would not find boring or ponderous.

 

[Bara_no_Hime]

As someone who actively dislikes Halo, and as someone who realizes that this review means nothing even in the grand scheme of Halo reviews... meh.

I agree with the Scale issue - if you can't use the whole scale, then why the hell have it? - but this guy does sound like a bit of a dick.

Although, he gets props for putting Xenoblade as his top game of the year. Fuck yeah!