Halo 4 gets a 2/10...

[ParanoidEngineer]

I hate Halo and even I'd give it at least a four.

That seems like a severe case of Anita Sarkeesian Syndrome, where you deliberately upset a certain group of people to get noticed. Not saying it doesn't work or it's wrong, but it's a pretty blatant example of it.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Wow that guy has a shitty top 10 list.

I can safely write him off as a retard who somehow figured out how to use the internet.

That's what I like to do with opinions that do not align with mine as well. That way none of my preconceptions are ever challenged, and I can remain safely cocooned in the warm environs of my own bias.

...deliberately upset a certain group of people...

You don't need to be deliberate to upset "gamers". Say a bad word about their favorite game and they melt down faster than Chernobyl.

It's a common phenomenon with people who are insecure about their opinions. They pitch a fit when they get challenged.

 

[Tdoodle]

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

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/03/24/the-official-journey-review-faq/

Saw that his Journey review had been mentioned so figured I'd have a quick look at that, but stumbled on this first. It's the 5th question, in his own words being objective "is not how I write". Again, I'm all in favour of this - I actually prefer it - but not being objective and then giving it a score that will be viewed objectively by does not make sense.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Saw that his Journey review had been mentioned so figured I'd have a quick look at that, but stumbled on this first. It's the 5th question, in his own words being objective "is not how I write". Again, I'm all in favour of this - I actually prefer it - but not being objective and then giving it a score that will be viewed objectively by does not make sense.

Well, fair enough. I'm not about the argue with his own perspective on his own reviews. Frankly, I don't want to end up in a situation where I'm aggressively going to bat for Tom fucking Chick, I've been irritated at him for a decade now.

I just HATE blind confirmation bias. "Oh this review conforms with my expectations? Good review! Oh this review is too high? BOUGHT AND PAID FOR? Oh this review is too low? TROLLING FOR ATTENTION!".

It's like there's an entire world full of people out there who literally cannot fathom the existence of opinions different than their own that aren't inspired by malice or stupidity.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Aww isnt that cute, you think you have an idea of what you are talking about!

Your sneering, defensive response is supposed to convince me I don't know what I'm talking about?

I don't have a problem with views different than mine, hell I enjoy debates with people with differing philosophies on various subjects, and have no problem with my preconceptions being challenged, I enjoy when I am proven wrong and learn something as much as I enjoy when I can educate another.

But keep on thinking its bias cause my poor world view cant handle a 2/10 to a game which has what? one negative review on metacritic? Instead of just contempt for an idiot which is what it is.

Well, I don't know about you, but I often don't instantly dismiss people as "retards" because their list of favorite games does not align with mine.

So, if it's all the same to you, I will keep on thinking it's bias, because it clearly is. I can add "contempt for total strangers based on their video game preferences" as well I guess. Thanks for that clarification!

 

[lacktheknack]

Other games this guy has given 2/10 to:
Lollipop Chainsaw
Syndicate
From Dust
Resident Evil 6

Star ratings are irritating.

 

[renegade7]

Some people think it's trendy to make a big deal out of bashing popular games. It's like that one asshole who keeps telling everyone all about how he doesn't watch TV.

 

[snowbear]

Other games this guy has given 2/10 to:
Lollipop Chainsaw
Syndicate
From Dust
Resident Evil 6

Star ratings are irritating.

You mean he isn't just making an example of Halo 4... How about that!

Star ratings are the same as any other form of rating... completely irreverent.

Ignore the rating, and read the context for a change. Maybe then you might understand why he scored it so low...

 

[lacktheknack]

Other games this guy has given 2/10 to:
Lollipop Chainsaw
Syndicate
From Dust
Resident Evil 6

Star ratings are irritating.

You mean he isn't just making an example of Halo 4... How about that!

Star ratings are the same as any other form of rating... completely irreverent.

Ignore the rating, and read the context for a change. Maybe then you might understand why he scored it so low...

I did.

From his review, I can see him giving the game a 2 or 3.

1/5 really does seem to be trolling for views. (Note: It worked.)

 

[tautologico]

I think gamers need to grow up and stop throwing a fit every time a reviewer gives a low score to a game from a series they like. It's his opinion, he can give the score he wants.

Is he trolling for attention? If so, it only works because angry gamers give attention to reviewers who give low scores to games they like. If gamers didn't get so worked up with this, it wouldn't work as an attention grab.

I don't know if the critic in question is trolling for attention, but he's free to give Halo or any other game the score he wants. You may agree with him, disagree with him, or just completely ignore anyone with a different opinion, but that's it.

BTW, the only Halo game I played was Halo 3, briefly, in a friend's house (I don't own a 360). I thought it was quite fun. My opinion is irrelevant to my point, but I'm adding just so people don't say I'm a Halo hater or something like it.

 

[Souplex]

I haven't played it yet, but to be honest it's a Halo game I mean... what else is there to say? Everyone and their mum knows what it's going to be like, so I don't see why people are even bothering to read the reviews.

Halo is like Pizza, there's good pizza, (Reach) and bad pizza, (ODST) but even bad pizza is still enjoyable.

 

[snowbear]

Other games this guy has given 2/10 to:
Lollipop Chainsaw
Syndicate
From Dust
Resident Evil 6

Star ratings are irritating.

You mean he isn't just making an example of Halo 4... How about that!

Star ratings are the same as any other form of rating... completely irreverent.

Ignore the rating, and read the context for a change. Maybe then you might understand why he scored it so low...

I did.

From his review, I can see him giving the game a 2 or 3.

1/5 really does seem to be trolling for views. (Note: It worked.)

I don't recall him saying much if anything positive about it to me he seemed pretty consistent on the not liking it front.

Kinda proves my point about the score being irreverent though. If you think the game sounds good then great that's your opinion go buy it and play it to your hearts content (maybe even write your own review as to why you think its good/bad).

This guy clearly didn't think much of it, and that is his opinion which he is entitled to. Who really cares about a little number at the end of the day its not like it makes everyone else's opinion somehow less valid.

 

[eevangoh]

It's Quarter to Three. The site infamous for their bullshit reviews, most of which are written by this same guy: Tom Chick. He's a fucking terrible writer and he seems to know it, which is why he gave Halo 4 2/10, Max Payne 3 4/10, and wrote about how much he hates the original Deus Ex (I agree that it is way overrated, but his reasoning for why it was bad was just total bullshit). He's a sad, pathetic attention whore who's too full of himself.

 

[scw55]

Reviews are opinion.
Full stop.

 

[RanD00M]

My real question is why any of us should give a fuck about what some reviewer thinks about the game. If you like it you like it, and if you don't then likewise. Reviews are not some holy rating that determines whether a game is good or not.

 

[Radoh]

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

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.

Firstly, I've no idea who the hell Tom Chick is, nor do I particularly care that you view him as a tenured video game critic. It really doesn't matter how long you've been around, he could have been the very first reviewer in history and that wouldn't change my opinion on him being a sensationalist, since this is the first time I've ever seen a review of his ever. The simple fact being that if he didn't rate it so low as he did I'd still not know who he is (much like a large number of people in this very thread, so that helps support that thought as well).

Secondly, don't you dare call me a hypocrite just because I don't think somebody being contrarian is worthy of praise based simply off the fact that he's being contrarian. You seem to be under the impression that you somehow know that this opinion of his is actually his opinion, when you are operating with the same information as the rest of us: He gave a really harsh review for something.
How are you so certain that he isn't just trolling for views?

My mind has been made up: He's a classier version of Razorfist and as such is to be ignored all the same.