IGN already has a bad rap amongst a lot of gamers for being too liberal with high scores, but at the end of the day a man or woman played that game, and they clearly loved it, maybe for anyone else it won't be a 10 out of 10, but for what that gamer wanted (yes reviewers are gamers too) right then and there Halo reach obviously hit the mark exactly, and if it did for them then it may for you too, that's the point of a review.
Halo Reach Perfect 10! WTF?
- Thread starter Evil_Weevil
- Start date
Recommended Videos
To be honest over the last few years IGN have been handing out 10s like junk mail. Mario Galaxy 2?? Now I've played it and it is a great game but I couldn't escape from the feeling that it is rehash of Mario Galaxy 1 with Yoshi.
10 should be the unattainable goal. Giving a game 10 implies it is absolute perfection and it will be what all other games should aspire to be for years to come.
Then again I'm not surprised as this is an industry where an completely average game gets a review of 7 not a 5.
10 should be the unattainable goal. Giving a game 10 implies it is absolute perfection and it will be what all other games should aspire to be for years to come.
Then again I'm not surprised as this is an industry where an completely average game gets a review of 7 not a 5.
It depends on what the score is based on. God of War III got a 10/10 in game informer and they didn't blast the story, but did mention it wasn't as strong as the previous games, even though it was bloody as we expected.
What I can only assume from your pointed out review and the GOWIII review is that the 10/10 is based on the gameplay and not the story. I've seen games with the best stories ever get low scores, and they did have some gameplay issues.
What I can only assume from your pointed out review and the GOWIII review is that the 10/10 is based on the gameplay and not the story. I've seen games with the best stories ever get low scores, and they did have some gameplay issues.
A score of 10 does NOT imply a perfect game, this is the interpretation gamers choose to apply to the score.TurboPanda said:
Sure, if you get ten out of ten on a math quiz you got a perfect score. But games are not math problems. There are various ways to interpret and enjoy games. Games are more like writing assignments or art projects. If a writing assignment accomplishes it's storytelling objectives and uses a good structure and setting that provides an enjoyable experience for the reader, you'll get a top grade. That doesn't mean your story is perfect, that it can never be improved, and that everyone will agree on it's merits. But it accomplishes the objectives.
Why can't people apply these same principles to a game? It's far more appropriate.
This topic makes no sense. Halo Reach was ALWAYS going to get perfect scores, simply because it's Halo. It's a brand effect, just like Starcraft 2 was always going to get perfect scores as well.
The game could be nothing more than you punching orphans and feeding them ground-up baby seals, and someone, somewhere, was going to grant it a perfect score.
When I was in college, one of my teachers refused to give any student a 20 (the highest grade, from 0/20) unless the student showed he knew more than the teacher about a certain subject. I wish more game critics would follow this philosophy. A perfect 10 should be impossible to ANY game, unless it brought something new and exciting to the medium.
The game could be nothing more than you punching orphans and feeding them ground-up baby seals, and someone, somewhere, was going to grant it a perfect score.
When I was in college, one of my teachers refused to give any student a 20 (the highest grade, from 0/20) unless the student showed he knew more than the teacher about a certain subject. I wish more game critics would follow this philosophy. A perfect 10 should be impossible to ANY game, unless it brought something new and exciting to the medium.
I lost faith in IGN when they compared Dynasty Warriors 5 to Halo. Of course that's not the only thing, they have done a lot of other stupid things. The thing I find stupid is that Reach is being given 10/10 as a game. It's not in a a"shooter" category of 10/10, they don't rate the game based on how well the RTS elemenst are do they? What I'm saying is giving it a 10/10 means it's better than any other game that is given a score below 10 no matter what "genre" or "type" of game it is. If someone wants to play a puzzle game they're not going to play Reach, if they want strategy they won't play Reach, if they want racing simulator they won't play Reach. Halo: Reach is not perfect because it does not offer everything, no game does.
The bottom line; video game reviews are total BS!
The bottom line; video game reviews are total BS!
It never ceases to amaze me how many people will ***** and ***** and ***** that "next gen = brown" and constantly rag on games like Gears of War, Modern Warfare, et al., for being various shades of brown and grey. That they use standard boring generic FPS weapons: assault rifle, shotgun, pistol, grenades.Geo Da Sponge said:
Then you have a game like Halo, with brightly coloured aliens and flashy weapons in a flowing science fiction setting with environments ranging from underground installations, to jungles to enemy spacecraft, and then complain about the visuals anyway because they think blue aliens and purple spaceships are dumb. They complain about weapons like the needler or covenant carbine for looking like unrealistic toys in comparison to the realistic guns from the games they just got done vilifying...
AND STILL CALL HALO GENERIC.
It may be a fine game, but the main problem seems to be that what Martin Robinson said was illogical. How can a game be perfect while having a mediocre (in his opinion) story? Also, IGN barely ever gives out 10/10 scores, so the game almost certainly doesn't live up to the hype. OK, I'm done rambling like an old man.John Funk said:
Er, who cares? The fact that they score it 10 rather than 9.5, 9.0, or hell, even lower, won't change the quality of the game. If you want it, get it. If not, don't. Don't dwell on scores too much, they're mainly for people who are on the fence and developers.
I'm pretty hyped for Reach myself, not really shocked it gets high ratings. Halo is fun. It's singleplayer/coop campaign is one of the most epic I have ever played (definately for a coop game) and I find the multiplayer very well executed. I have Halo, Halo 2 and Halo 3 and I have enjoyed all three of them greatly. When I'm just hanging out with friends at my place we'd often play Halo because very little games (especially on the xbox 360) came close to the fun you can have with Halo's 4 player splitscreen. Above reasons are why I definately value the Halo's as top games, maybe not 10/10 but definately up there (8.5+).
Too all the whiners and Halo-bashers, you can talk all about how Halo is supposedly bland and maybe there's even something to it if you forget the multiplayer. However the multiplayer is simply an one of a kind experience. You don't have to like it but everyone claiming the Halo series is bad or crap should take his head out of his ass and realise your personal preference doesn't mean anything to anyone but yourself.
P.S. My post/rant has nothing to do with fanboyism, frankly I don't care about what console or game I play.
As long as it's fun, isn't that what gaming is about?
Too all the whiners and Halo-bashers, you can talk all about how Halo is supposedly bland and maybe there's even something to it if you forget the multiplayer. However the multiplayer is simply an one of a kind experience. You don't have to like it but everyone claiming the Halo series is bad or crap should take his head out of his ass and realise your personal preference doesn't mean anything to anyone but yourself.
P.S. My post/rant has nothing to do with fanboyism, frankly I don't care about what console or game I play.
As long as it's fun, isn't that what gaming is about?
Minor thing? I'd think the single player campaign would be for more than just a "minor thing".maddawg IAJI said:
A game in a highly beloved series with a major developer's backing and a lot of hype gets a good score?
BLASPHEMY!
BLASPHEMY!
Exactly. Gamers are natural hypocrites.Kermi said:
The four steps of the FPS cycle:
1. We have tons of subpar "realistic" shooters.
2. We want variety and crazy shit.
3. We get it and complain it's random and unrealistic.
2. We have tons of subpar "realistic" shooters.
