Halo 4 gets a 2/10...

[BloatedGuppy]

A contrarian for the sake of being contrary?

Technically I'm the only one who used the word "contrarian" in reference to Tom Chick, and it's a label he's been dealing with for many years now. I didn't graft it to him. I'm just referencing his reputation.

I actually used to like the guy, back when he did Tom vs Bruce. Some of those were quite entertaining, especially when Erik Wolpaw would participate.

http://www.1up.com/features/tom-bruce-19

 

[sunsetspawn]

Well, this is a guy that hated the original Deus Ex, or so the comments and his other posts say.

And apparently New Vegas as well...

but he liked Fable 3, COD: Black Ops, and Mass Effect 3.

To put it plainly, the guy is a putz.

 

[Baron_Rouge]

It's just one man's opinion. Lots of people have liked games that I hated, and vice versa. Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Also, this is Halo. People who want it are gonna buy it anyway, and this review won't have a big impact on their sales. It doesn't really matter. A few bad reviews can kill a new IP from a fledgling studio, but this is Halo. It's not in any danger of not selling. Just let him have his opinion and make up your own mind on whether it's good or not. He may be just doing it to get hits, but he may not. In any case, his opinion is still valid.

 

[ex275w]

I haven't read the review since I really dislike them, because his writing style provokes the same reaction in me as Tim Rogers. I do think this guy is pretty contrarian and nitpicky and is wrong for criticizing games like movies, since they are immensely different mediums.

Still he shouldn't give pity points for the game being functional. It's like giving a movie praise for being watchable. Or a book having a readable font. All games should be functional.

I really dislike the people who want to remove scores, I only read the lowest score so I can see the most common problems a game has and buy it depending on what that means. Also scores are shorthands for certain qualities a game has, so reading the definition of a 6/10 on destructoid gives you a vague idea of the qualities of a game. The text backs up the score and details why the game fits that criteria

Also for the people wanting a Objective review, here's one! I don't think that a lot of persons know what the word means.
http://www.destructoid.com/100-objective-review-final-fantasy-xiii-179178.phtml

 

[ex275w]

Well, this is a guy that hated the original Deus Ex, or so the comments and his other posts say.

And apparently New Vegas as well...

but he liked Fable 3, COD: Black Ops, and Mass Effect 3.

To put it plainly, the guy is a putz.

Well someone described him as the Armond White of videogames. Kind of like another Tim Rogers or icycalm, so I guess that's a pretty good description of his tastes, which I would describe as uncanny. I would love to analyze or stalk those people and see what makes them tick.

 

[ex275w]

People are allowed to dislike things...

I probably would have been mad about this kind of thing when i was 12, only could afford to have one or two games outside of Christmas at best and only ever one console. At that age you have to be CERTAIN that EVERYONE likes the game you like otherwise you'll be the one with the 'dud' game and no-one will talk to you at school, laughing at you for liking the 'bad' game. When you grow up you learn to not give a damn (sometimes).

If you like halo 4 (pre-emptively i might add) then why does it matter to you that some guy with a keyboard didn't? I'm not a massive fan of playing FPS games on console whatsoever (but i will make an exception for the halo series, since i do like the universe, it's the only reason my 360 is still hanging on it there after i started playing on PC in 2008), and i think CoD is a steaming pile o' junk now. There are some of my opinions, if you don't agree with them, that's fine, you're allowed to think so. It's as easy as that.

That guy is also allowed to (potentially) disagree with halo 4 when i play it. I don't care if he personally didn't like it, the only thing i care about with my entertainment is if I like it!

'Sup dude! Nice username, welcome to the Escapist, and thanks for making your first post perhaps one of the more reasonable ones in the thread.

You've got some good points. Frankly, I'm not even sure why this thread exists. Yes, the review is bad. It isn't so bad it's noteworthy, it's just kind of bad in passing. It isn't well informed, and that seems to be the key thing people are honing in on (see: the "rampancy" issue, contradictory statements, and his handling of the reviewing process as a whole). The guy's evidently well known though, so everyone wants to point and laugh instead of dismissing him as "one guy with a keyboard." These kind of things happen.

After his alleged Deus Ex score (which seems to be a similarly infamous issue but I don't feel like verifying it at the moment), I'm not sure why this qualifies as news.

What's the point of saying "2/10" anyway? What's wrong with the "1 of 5 stars" listed in the actual review? If anyone says "1/5 is the same as 2/10", then I need to ask why we were so eager to present it in 2/10 format. (Hint: the answer is that a numerical scale of ten seems to carry more weight and requires more analysis to use than a five star scale, and logically attracts more attention than "1 of 5 stars, yo"). Therefore I put it to you the deliberate use of "2/10" means we're demonstrating a slight imperative of attracting attention to this particular issue.
And then we proceed to denounce this reviewer for doing the same.

Eh, but what do I know? His review is about as serious as a college frat guy's opinion, and any logical analysis of any and all issues are built around this review can carry no more weight. To anyone familiar with Homestuck, I've got to get this off my chest and say reading the review reminded of GameBro Magazine [http://www.mspaintadventures.com/?s=6&p=001942], a joke of a magazine within narrative and a satire of biased and ignorant game reviews without.

Yeah, I just reviewed our review of a review. Check it.

Except unlike Tom Chick, Dennis and his Bros are entretaining. Also I don't get the argument that 1/5 is different than 2/10, mathematically they are the same percentage. The only difference is I can think of that a 10 point scale uses 5 more criterias than the 5 point scale. I never understood about reviewers whining about their scores being mathematically converted in Metacritic. So you gave a game a 3/5 that means 60% out of a 100%. If you don't want your scores on Metacritic use a Excellent, good, average, mediocre, crap 5 point scale.

*rant over*

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

No, OP, he didn't give it 2/10. He gave it 1 star. There is a difference.

This is why the 10 point scale is dumb. The number of people here just taking your assertion that that was his score at face value is absolutely ridiculous. Do people not read things any more?

 

[newfoundsky]

Oh and yes A.I.s have lifespans, this is a thing. This isn't something 343 pulled out of their rears, A.I. decay and rampancy have been a part of the Halo universe for years now.

What's this lifespan thing? I haven't played Halo since 2 so maybe I don't remember but lifespans sound interesting.

OT: The cynic in me would agree he's just trolling for hits. Unless the game doesn't function I don't think a 2/10 is really ever justified, even for games I hate.

In the Halo lore (the books) AI's like Cortana have a life expectancy of about seven to eight years, because they would apparently learn so much they would go batshit crazy.

 

[MrGalactus]

Ok so recently there was a post that pointed out a review of Halo 4 which criticized the game for not having iron sights and not being linear enough. The reviewer gave the game a 7/10 which isn't a bad score, it's just that his complaints seemed ridiculous (my opinion, yours may differ).

Now this reviewer http://www.quartertothree.com/fp/2012/11/04/halo-4-is-half-the-game-it-should-be/ has given Halo 4 a 2/10. Which in my mind means the game pretty much has to be broken but he doesn't say anything about it not working. These seem to be his primary reasons for the 2/10 score:
Too much like the past Halo games

Not enough like the past Halo games (yes I'm aware that these first two contradict each other)

You don't get to fire the big gun on the Mammoth

Enemies are Tron like

No scoring system in single-player (I agree with him on this, that's what made Halo 3's campaign so replayable)

AI's having a lifespan

The story is slow, sentimental and too serious

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)

Anyway, what do my fellow Escapists think about the review. I myself got a bit of a laugh out of it but a lot of the things he was criticizing I don't personally think are all that bad. I'm not going to get the game anyway because I've only ever really cared about the campaigns in Halo games but I'll definitely rent it.

Yeah, I don't even like HALO but I can tell this is for attention. Best to ignore it.

 

[Deathninja19]

It's his opinion and he's entitled to it. Still, personally I would have to hate a game pretty bad to give it a 2/10 but that's just me.

Also, AI having a lifespan has been ALL over the expanded universe for years now, the Halo games are finally catching up to that little segment of lore, so that complaint is pretty much invalid.

Not really, not everyone (including me) has the time or inclination to read the EU. I've played every Halo even enjoying their stories and yet I would never touch the books so this whole AI thing seemed very silly to me too.

 

[Erttheking]

It's his opinion and he's entitled to it. Still, personally I would have to hate a game pretty bad to give it a 2/10 but that's just me.

Also, AI having a lifespan has been ALL over the expanded universe for years now, the Halo games are finally catching up to that little segment of lore, so that complaint is pretty much invalid.

Not really, not everyone (including me) has the time or inclination to read the EU. I've played every Halo even enjoying their stories and yet I would never touch the books so this whole AI thing seemed very silly to me too.

You know, this is pretty basic information that even people like me who haven't read the book know about, kinda like the SPARTAN III project.

 

[kixter]

First off, the reviewer is entitled to his opinion, but he seemed to used Yahtzee's reviewing style, but in a serious manner. To me it looked like his only problems were lack of new scenery and that lack of firing the big ass gun on the mammoth. Okay, admittedly, I'm kind of disappointed that when I get to the mission with the mammoth, I won't get to see any big ass guns, but it's not the end of the world. And as for the scenery? That's not really something that one needs to get too concerned about unless 343 is literally copy pasting levels from previous Halo games. I really think that that dude needs to lighten up about it.

Yahtzee is paid to review extremely harshly but at least he doesn't score and lower the metacritic average.

 

[kixter]

even bad games don't get scores this low. seriously, look up Kane & lynch 2 or brink or mindjack actually one reviewer gave it a 20.

 

[Hagi]

Don't think you can translate a 1-5 star system to a 0-10 score system.

A star system generally works like this:
1 Star: Okay
2 Stars: Good
3 Stars: Great
4 Stars: Amazing
5 Stars: Perfect

It doesn't have any truly negative values like a 0-10 score system, because it doesn't work like that. Stars are awarded for things done very well, 1 star means there's something that there's game's doing well but otherwise nothing noteworthy.

I'm well aware that Metacritic does try to translate this. But that's Metacritic's fault. Not this reviewer's fault.

The reviewer rates it 1 star, which is not 2/10.

 

[Deathninja19]

It's his opinion and he's entitled to it. Still, personally I would have to hate a game pretty bad to give it a 2/10 but that's just me.

Also, AI having a lifespan has been ALL over the expanded universe for years now, the Halo games are finally catching up to that little segment of lore, so that complaint is pretty much invalid.

Not really, not everyone (including me) has the time or inclination to read the EU. I've played every Halo even enjoying their stories and yet I would never touch the books so this whole AI thing seemed very silly to me too.

You know, this is pretty basic information that even people like me who haven't read the book know about, kinda like the SPARTAN III project.

If it's basic then how come I didn't know about it?

It's like Gears of War 3, where there were characters from the books being treated as established game characters, it's jarring to have something just pop up in a game like it has always been there. Having an EU is fine but a concept that comes from the EU should never be placed in the game without having at least an introduction to the concept.

 

[Deathninja19]

Don't think you can translate a 1-5 star system to a 0-10 score system.

A star system generally works like this:
1 Star: Okay
2 Stars: Good
3 Stars: Great
4 Stars: Amazing
5 Stars: Perfect

It doesn't have any truly negative values like a 0-10 score system, because it doesn't work like that. Stars are awarded for things done very well, 1 star means there's something that there's game's doing well but otherwise nothing noteworthy.

I'm well aware that Metacritic does try to translate this. But that's Metacritic's fault. Not this reviewer's fault.

The reviewer rates it 1 star, which is not 2/10.

You really hit the nail on the head, metacritic made this score a two out of ten not the reviewer.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

If it's half the game it should be, was he going to give it a 4/10 if it was as good as he expected?

 

[WoW Killer]

Logical translation:

I'm giving the game one star, which means x by my system X.

No! By system Y, one star means y. You must be wrong, because y =/= x.

 

[Erttheking]

Don't think you can translate a 1-5 star system to a 0-10 score system.

A star system generally works like this:
1 Star: Okay
2 Stars: Good
3 Stars: Great
4 Stars: Amazing
5 Stars: Perfect

It doesn't have any truly negative values like a 0-10 score system, because it doesn't work like that. Stars are awarded for things done very well, 1 star means there's something that there's game's doing well but otherwise nothing noteworthy.

I'm well aware that Metacritic does try to translate this. But that's Metacritic's fault. Not this reviewer's fault.

The reviewer rates it 1 star, which is not 2/10.

Wait wait wait, that's how a five star system works? What happens if a game is bad?