Halo 4 gets a 2/10...

[BloatedGuppy]

And then let's start with this shall we? I don't have an opinion on Halo Four. I've not played it, I have no real interest in playing it, but as it stands I've seen a total of one incredibly negative review for it: This one.

Then how would you have any idea whether or not the negativity was warranted?

I did notice that, but for some reason you mark that as relevant to the discussion at hand.

It was entirely relevant to your bizarre assertion that I was a fan of contrarian perspectives in criticism. Or maybe that's not what you meant. In fairness, the sentence I was responding to was word salad, you could have meant almost anything.

You see, you called me a hypocrite for me saying that he's just some guy I will take to ignoring based off of reasons already gone over, and that somehow marks me as saying one thing but doing another, and as such I did react negatively to your insult.

Actually I implied that the FORUM was full of hypocrites for their ardent whining about corrupt, toadying journalism that gifts high scores to game, then doing an abrupt about face and assuming any negative review is "trolling". You were one of MANY people quoted, for your specious assertion that it was "sensationalistic".

You can say that as much as you want and it still does not change the fact that I don't know him from a hole in the ground.

And this...there's really no response to this. You already seem to be aware how stupid it is to frame an argument around "Well I'VE never heard of him", so I'm just going to leave it at that. His "importance" however is entirely relative to whether or not you personally agree with his opinions and thus enjoy his reviews. I don't give a fig whether or not you LIKE Tom Chick.

Keep telling me how important he is for as long as you want, it will not change that I find him incredibly unimportant.

Can you quote me saying he is "important"?

Go ahead, take your time. I can wait.

 

[Ickorus]

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)

You pretty much said it right here, he probably wouldn't have given it a brilliant score anyway but he wanted to score his website some extra views and so bombed it.

Sadly that tactic isn't restricted to the small websites either, I've seen similar tactics employed in some more reputable websites too.

 

[shrekfan246]

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/

And he needs to tone down his pretentious writing. My spleen ruptured from reading the last entry.

Yeah, this is the same guy who railed Lollipop Chainsaw with a three paragraph review and wrote a limerick as a "professional" scored review for... dammit, I can't actually remember anymore.

No offense to Tom Chick, but I'm going to just ignore his opinion on video games.

 

[Radoh]

And then let's start with this shall we? I don't have an opinion on Halo Four. I've not played it, I have no real interest in playing it, but as it stands I've seen a total of one incredibly negative review for it: This one.

Then how would you have any idea whether or not the negativity was warranted?

Because there's been one review that is negative by a person who I put little stock in as far as opinions go. The people that I do pay attention to and that I agree with say otherwise. How can you not grasp this?

You see, you called me a hypocrite for me saying that he's just some guy I will take to ignoring based off of reasons already gone over, and that somehow marks me as saying one thing but doing another, and as such I did react negatively to your insult.

Actually I implied that the FORUM was full of hypocrites for their ardent whining about corrupt, toadying journalism that gifts high scores to game, then doing an abrupt about face and assuming any negative review is "trolling". You were one of MANY people quoted, for your specious assertion that it was "sensationalistic".

Then maybe you shouldn't have quoted me in a post where you are calling others hypocrites. And yes, I do find this sensationalistic review to be sensationalistic. And before you go and tell me how tenured he is, that's irrelevant to him being a sensationalist.

You can say that as much as you want and it still does not change the fact that I don't know him from a hole in the ground.

And this...there's really no response to this. You already seem to be aware how stupid it is to frame an argument around "Well I'VE never heard of him", so I'm just going to leave it at that. His "importance" however is entirely relative to whether or not you personally agree with his opinions and thus enjoy his reviews. I don't give a fig whether or not you LIKE Tom Chick.

And I don't give a fig that you think he's important because he's been around for a long time as that is irrelevant. Seems like opinions cut deep.

Keep telling me how important he is for as long as you want, it will not change that I find him incredibly unimportant.

Can you quote me saying he is "important"?

Go ahead, take your time. I can wait.

Okay, how about the fact that you've waged war in the thread for two pages because people don't agree with him on his opinion that Halo Four is a piece of shit? That seems to strike me as you thinking it's important, so yeah, I'ma just circle ALL on this one.

 

[Baldr]

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.

Come on you played a video game...

Lets divide it into parts:

Gameplay
Graphics/Aesthetics
Story/Experience
Sound/Music

Gameplay(ie..):
Are the controls fluid?
Is there enough of a tutorial or learn stage?
How is the learning curve?
Does the difficulty change over time?
Do the controls change over time?

Graphics/Aesthetics(ie..):
Are the aesthetics appropriate for the game?
Are there glaring issue with the graphics(stretch textures/ missing gaps)?
Do all the graphics conform(do they all fit together)?
Any issues with the lighting or particle systems?

Story/Experience(ie..):
Is there a complete story formula(ie Monomyth)?
Are there gaps in the story?
Does the game have an appropriate ending?
Is the game fun?

Sound/Music(ie..)
Are the sound appropriate?
Is there a delay or sound play when they are not suppose to?
Is the music appropriate?
Does the music add to the atmosphere of the game?
Does the music sound aesthetically pleasing after several replays?

I'm not saying that opinions are bad, but there are a lot of technical things you can rate a game on and you want to compare it to other games out there. A rating should never be on whether you like a game or not as their rating system is setup:

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/our-ratings-system/

 

[RedDeadFred]

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.

He talks about how it feels like a retread and that the new enemies don't feel new enough. Then the goes and complains that they didn't reintroduce the Flood. How is that not retreading? He also says that he loved the first Halo game but then he complains that the story in this one is too serious. Every Halo story has been serious...

 

[4RM3D]

The only people who are overreacting are people like you who don't bother to read a forum before commenting.
They are discussing a review, they are not crying or whining about it, they are looking at the points he made and giving their opinions on these points, since when was that taboo? Looking at the later posts, it seems to be a little hijacked by people who think an opinion can't be discussed.

They are discussing it only because the reviewer gave the game a 2/10. If he gave it a 8+, no one would have felt the need to discuss it, regardless of whether or not it was a poorly written review. This whole ordeal is biased. No, I just think it's pointless to 'review a review'. There are always going to be review(er)s out there you don't agree with. And there are always going to be trolls out there.

 

[Rad Party God]

Well, pretty much like that guy that gave a low score for The Secret World, complaining about how hard some quests would get and that some were broken (in part this is true, but they've been fixed for a while).

The sad part is that these troll reviews are "official" by Metacritic's standards and they lower the overall score, I don't have an Xbox any longer (it only lasted a full year), but I still care about the Halo franchise, these kind of reviews should be nuked to the moon for being so moronic and not even providing a constructive criticism.

 

[perkl]

2/10 is pretty good, considering. It's the 7th game in the franchise so by my scientific review method the correct score should be 80 (mediocre game) - 70 (7th game in franchise) = 10 (final score). I don't think they do half-stars at QtT so it was just rounded up. The score in itself is valid.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Stuff

Look, this is devolving into semantic bickering, you're obsessed over my non-use of the word "important", and it's going nowhere fast. You also seem to be missing the point entirely.

"Sensationalist" is an attack. It's a charge. It's a term of dismissal. It's no different, really, than claiming "trolling". You read a single review from a man you'd never heard of before about a game you'd never played, instantly came to the conclusion it was sensationalist, and indicated that no force on heaven or earth would change your mind.

And this is what I'm "waging war" about. Is this bankrupt assumption that reviews need to cling to a median score in order to NOT be labelled "sensationalist", or to be accused of shilling. That we need to view everything as a critical consensus, and anything that comes outside that consensus is instantly suspect and declared illegitimate. That if a reviewer plays, say, Skyrim, and finds it to be a 3/10, then checks the internet and sees everyone else has given it 8/10, must change his review to be an 8/10 or be accused of "sensationalism". This is a poisonous attitude, really, and (as has been oft discussed) it is a big part of the reason why fans have a hand in the general decline of gaming "journalism".

The reason the fact that Chick has a long career in the industry is relevant is that if you knew the first thing about the guy, you'd know this is just how he rolls. He doesn't take consensus into account, and he's not afraid to use the whole scale. This has resulted in him being branded as "deliberately contrarian", and whether or not that's a fair charge only he knows. In a hobbyist community where we cry and moan almost daily about reviewers living entirely in the 7-10 end of the scale, a guy like Chick *should* be a breath of fresh air and applauded for not "selling out" as so many others are assumed to be. Instead, he is a controversial and divisive personality. Why? He occasionally gives popular games bad scores. Look up the term "confirmation bias" and I'm sure you'll understand why.

I'm not saying that opinions are bad, but there are a lot of technical things you can rate a game on and you want to compare it to other games out there. A rating should never be on whether you like a game or not as their rating system is setup:

http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/our-ratings-system/

I hear what you're saying, and I generally agree with you on the tyranny of points scales. However, if they're up front about how they score games, isn't it incumbent on us to understand that it's an opinion piece and not take the numerical score as gospel? I realize that Metacritic has a really unhealthy influence in the industry right now, but that's not really something we should be encouraging by making sure scores stay within an "acceptable range".

 

[Batou667]

if a game hasnt changed much from previous games it should earn a 5. if its a solid version of that give it a 6

Depends; are we judging the game on its quality or its originality? Arguably originality is a desirable feature but some games and series have resigned themselves to being a gradual evolution from game to game because that's what the fans want; rather than gambling by mixing up tried-and-tested gameplay. I don't think it's fair to actively penalise games for not innovating (the Fifa and CoD franchises would be scoring nothing but 5s and 6s if that were the standard model).

 

[chadachada123]

The only people who are overreacting are people like you who don't bother to read a forum before commenting.
They are discussing a review, they are not crying or whining about it, they are looking at the points he made and giving their opinions on these points, since when was that taboo? Looking at the later posts, it seems to be a little hijacked by people who think an opinion can't be discussed.

They are discussing it only because the reviewer gave the game a 2/10. If he gave it a 8+, no one would have felt the need to discuss it, regardless of whether or not it was a poorly written review. This whole ordeal is biased. No, I just think it's pointless to 'review a review'. There are always going to be review(er)s out there you don't agree with. And there are always going to be trolls out there.

It's not really about not agreeing with the reviewer, it's that this reviewer uses a completely different system than the standard or even non-standard ones, on top of letting his views permeate where a good journalist would not.

Standard: 70% is an average game, a passing grade, and 9/10 is a great game.

Non-standard: 50% is an average game, one that is playable but not amazing, and 70%+ are for good/great games.

A score of 2/10 or 1 star out of 5 implies to anyone that uses the standard or non-standard system (That is, FREAKING EVERYONE) that the game is fundamentally broken, that it is not only not fun to the reviewer but that it wouldn't be fun to fans of the series or fun to, well, basically anyone. Not only that, such a low score generally means that the game is unplayable, that it suffers from such massive glitches that it is on a level close to Big Rigs.

 

[perkl]

Depends; are we judging the game on its quality or its originality?

How are those two different? If there's nothing original, it's just a $60 DLC.

I don't think it's fair to actively penalise games for not innovating

It's not only fair, it's absolutely required if gaming is to survive as a hobby. Reviewers should drop their grades significantly if the games try to stick to a formula or play it safe. It's better to try and fail than not try at all.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Dear Inari, you people are just...sad...
Someone DARES dislike the almighty halo for a lot of perfectly valid reasons, and suddenly there's a massive shit storm.
Here's some advice, get your heads out of your own brown "halos" and actually read and think about it.

Fine, let me do your thinking for you...again...

=Too much like the past Halo games=
He brings up the valid point that every other Halo game had some sort of unique/new feature, and this one just stagnates, and does nothing new, save Spartan Ops, which appears to be a cheap, DLC grab for your money.

=Not enough like the past Halo games=
No, they don't contradict each other...Hell, he barely said that AT ALL. He said, as OP notes, that it didn't have scoring system, and that if you have a mode called FLOOD, WHY DON'T YOU HAVE THE FLOOD!?

=You don't get to fire the big gun on the Mammoth=
Uh, no. He was saying that the gun doesn't fire AT ALL. It's like this, If I'm playing Armored core, and I see a gigantic mobile platform, lined to the brim with guns, I want it to shoot, not to carry me around. I have the feets for that.

=Enemies are Tron like=
Uh....ok? So he doesn't like the visual aesthetic, what's your point?
Moreover, he was complaining that EVERYTHING was tron-like, to the point of just being a vapid, forgettable reskin.

=No scoring system in single-player=
You, yourself, pointed out that this makes the game less re-playable, so...yeah....

=AI's having a lifespan=
Ok, people bring up "this was established in the book, wah."...Ok...well, that's stupid. Why, in the name of Inari's pale ass, would you put in stuff from the BOOKS as something VITAL TO THE PLOT!? Well, clearly then, all the fanfictions about My Little Pony are true, and all the characters are dead, gay, and...
You see my point here? Books published by the developers are little more than fan-fics and if they're written by the writers, it's still stupid, and egotistcal for the devs to EXPECT everyone to have read their "totTally Awezome bookz yo!"
Oh, and yes, AI having a life-span is kinda dumb, in my opinion.

=The story is slow, sentimental and too serious=
Again, opinion...

Well, it's been said before me, but I'll say it again.
Read the review, and form your own opinion. The "score" system is just a show of a reviewers personal enjoyment.

And will Halo fanboys PLEASE try to THINK before deeming a Halo game 10/10, GOTY! That being said, I'm going to be called a troll who's just trying to get attention and sound smart, and a lot of other whining, bitching and moaning. Mark my words.
Flame shield: Up.

First of all, I did not say that all of his points were ridiculous as you seem to be implying that I said. Secondly, you raise a lot of good points. Thirdly, I disagree with you about what he was meaning with some of his points but I think that's just a matter of opinion. Fourth, why does it matter if rampancy was originally introduced in the books? What's wrong with introducing this in a later game? This point especially stuck out to me like he was searching very hard for something to complain about. But hey, that's my opinion and yours may differ. I didn't want this thread to be completely one sided because then there's really no purpose for discussion. I think you do raise a lot of good points and I do hope people don't flame you because you are adding value to the discussion.

 

[repeating integers]

Depends; are we judging the game on its quality or its originality?

How are those two different? If there's nothing original, it's just a $60 DLC.

I don't think it's fair to actively penalise games for not innovating

It's not only fair, it's absolutely required if gaming is to survive as a hobby. Reviewers should drop their grades significantly if the games try to stick to a formula or play it safe. It's better to try and fail than not try at all.

Completely disagree, I'm afraid. I don't like change for the sake of change - if you've got no reason to change your game, by all means keep the core formula the same.

 

[ZehMadScientist]

If it's about the rating system, a 2/10 is his own subjective judgement of the game. I haven't read the review, but if he gave the game a 2/10 from an objective point of view, the man should be fired and burned hard.

If a game's mechanics work and the game plays how the developers meant it to be played, but I have issues with the story, narrative, inventory system, you name it, I'd give it someting like a 4/10 if it's pretty bad. Any lower is purely due to bugs, broken gameplay and the like.

I'd say it's a score of how much he enjoyed the game. I really hope that's what it is.

 

[Batou667]

How are those two different? If there's nothing original, it's just a $60 DLC.

Well, it's possible to have a very good game that is only an incremental improvement over its prequel or the "industry standard" (See: most Street Fighter games, Pokemon, Fifa, CoD...) but still good enough to appeal to fans of the genre, and it's also possible to have hugely innovative games which are fundamentally broken in some way or just not much fun. It's nice when a game is both good and innovative, but the two aren't necessarily the same.

I appreciate that games as a whole need a degree of innovation to progress but that doesn't mean every game ought to be an innovator. This is an industry big enough for both flawed gems and highly-polished but safe examples.

 

[perkl]

Completely disagree, I'm afraid. I don't like change for the sake of change - if you've got no reason to change your game, by all means keep the core formula the same.

Dude, you'll have to trawl harder if you expect to catch anything.

If it's about the rating system, a 2/10 is his own subjective judgement of the game. I haven't read the review, but if he gave the game a 2/10 from an objective point of view, the man should be fired and burned hard.

Why on earth? 2/10 should mean "just like the previous one in series without any technical flaws". Then you'd have a meaningful scale.

 

[repeating integers]

Completely disagree, I'm afraid. I don't like change for the sake of change - if you've got no reason to change your game, by all means keep the core formula the same.

Dude, you'll have to trawl harder if you expect to catch anything.

Erm.

OK, then.

...What are you blithering on about?