-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo 4: Review Thread
- Thread starter Vire
- Start date
Princess Carl
Member
It is really funny to see someone give a bad review, then watch the fans mobilize in anger.
Seems counter intuitive to make a big deal out of it since that's what the reviewer wants in a situation like this. If you know the game is better than the score(in your opinion), then don't bring it up. It's really simple. How does the score affect your enjoyment of the game?
Beaten like a beat down in Halo.
Seems counter intuitive to make a big deal out of it since that's what the reviewer wants in a situation like this. If you know the game is better than the score(in your opinion), then don't bring it up. It's really simple. How does the score affect your enjoyment of the game?
Beaten like a beat down in Halo.
I am not a clever man
It's funny since if anything, I think the fact that the game only went down 2 points (from an 89 to an 87) due to a "20% review" (lol) is pretty commendable/good.
I cant remember a game with 85+ on MC getting a 2/10 score, ever.
It can only happen if someone nuts makes a review.
Digital Limit
Member
That's not true.
We're in a different climate with different people both by virtue of growth and introduction. One might argue that there's more merit to dump on Halo now that there's a pervasive and polarized audience to pander to, see: Call of Duty's community.
It's ridiculous, but certainly the case.
And a lot of people complaining here are giving those critics more ammo, every big game release is the same, i find those who score the game with a 100/100 as questionqble as those giving it a 20/100 but i don't see many of you complaining about it, it's just a big wankerfest to be able to say my favorite game scored x higher than your favorite game. In the grand scheme of things, true gamers don't care, we're in the minority here.
Edit: you should make your own list of aproved critics and average their scores and make it official Neogaf aproved meta score and end this silly cycle for good.
Edit: you should make your own list of aproved critics and average their scores and make it official Neogaf aproved meta score and end this silly cycle for good.
So it's Tom Chick who gave Halo 4 2/10? Man, the guy loves being perceived as controversial. Anyone remembers his idiotic review of Deus Ex, one of the most important games ever?
Yeah, no wonder MS are pissed their game happened to be a victim of a professional troll.
100/100 is 10 points away from the average. 20/100 is 70. How is it the same thing.
100/100 is questionable, if the game is an 20/100. Which is not the Halo 4 case.
Have you never disliked a game that had a high Metacritic score?
The problem is two fold. An industry that puts bonuses and perceived success based on a bunch of critics' opinions, and the critics themselves who have a greater impact on success of a product, compared to other entertainment industries.
TemplaerDude
Member
I'm not going to pretend I don't understand why these threads inevitably turn into score bitching, but it's still pretty dumb. For every good post that focuses on the actual content of the review there's another 10 just bitching about the score and meta critic average.
Who.
Cares.
I read Chick's review. He's quite clear on why he's not a fan of the game. I don't agree with him for the most part, but it's not worth getting up in arms about.
Who.
Cares.
I read Chick's review. He's quite clear on why he's not a fan of the game. I don't agree with him for the most part, but it's not worth getting up in arms about.
In a rational universe, you would be of course absolutely correct. The problem is how people look for aggregates to tell them how good a game is. It's the math of opinions (which is fucking insane if you think about it) and yet, people flock to it. Someone on this thread mentioned a Rottentomatoes.com aggregate, which I think is a far more reasonable system, Keeping individual scores, but giving a general feeling on the game. But since most games are between 70-100.. how would that work? Bad games are giving 70 percent all the time.
I really am starting to like the idea of a "thumbs up/thumbs down" system.
Truespeed
Member
The 'low' metacritic score presents ammunition against their favorite game and they can't deal with it. This is the same reviewer that gave Uncharted 3 a 4/10. If you make a sequel and use the same repetitive formula then prepare to be eviscerated by him.
Every time a Halo game comes out the same cunt at BigPond Game Arena reviews it terribly.
The asshole has confessed he hates the series yet he's still considered a credible reviewer and allowed to review the game for the website. I really hope no-one takes his opinion seriously.
The asshole has confessed he hates the series yet he's still considered a credible reviewer and allowed to review the game for the website. I really hope no-one takes his opinion seriously.
Now, I agree with you.
Tom Chick is absolutely entitled to post whatever pretentious BS he wishes to on his own website. His review reads like the infamous Football Manager review from IGN. And it's fine, what I don't understand is why Metacritic is including scores from personal blogs.
So he's a cunt for not liking tha game AND doing his job? Good to know.
Can't wait for his BLOPS 2 review......
I actually agree with Kuchera. He wasn't so much complaining about Chick's score as he was pointing out how this is the epitome of why Metacritic is stupid.
They're trying to aggregate a bunch of different metrics, opinions, and values and it doesn't work but people continue to treat it as something that has value.
Well neogaf is more about the business of it all. We talk about sales because good games may get a sequel if they sell well, or the studio will stay alive to make another game. A meta critic score could mean loss of bonuses for those who worked on the game. It is bigger then the game is just good or bad.
Wow did not know Ben Kuchera was such a fanboy. Need to avoid his opinions going forward.
Did you read the conversation ? He didn't say anything remotely fanboyish.
Lol
His quote - " Halo 4 had a 90 on Metacritic the last time I checked. Then an outlet gave it a 20 percent score. Now it's at an 88. Seems legit, all around"
So what does he exactly mean by this. Is he questioning the legitimacy of the outlet,metacritic or both. Why is he so bothered about Halo achieving a 90 at metacritc and even make this statement. He gave his opinion on the game right? - Should he not be just moving on instead of checking up on metacritic and commenting on how his favorite game has been robbed of the 90 score. Thats what this sounds like.
That is sort of bull shit.
First off if you are going to do an aggregate, you ignore the top few and the bottom few. Plus if you want to create an intelligent score, you would place more repretable scores by repretable publications at a higher level good or bad.
Either way it is a broken system. It is a shame that people's bonuses or jobs may be based on an average score where reviewers may be.....
Did you miss this:
He's pretty obviously complaining about Metacritic and Metacritic alone.
He might be doing his job but he's not competent. When reviewing something with '4' in the name, it is obvious that a large part of the audience is interested in the changes in this new entry to the franchise, not to find out that 'this game sucks same like the previous ones lololol'.
Bashing Halo for being Halo is the same sort of incompetency that IGN showed reviewing Football Manager and bashing it for not being EA's FIFA.
IGN's review is as bad as his, but I don't see as many people making a fuss about it and angrily discussing it. If you are really worried about a MC average just think Tom Chic's and IGNs cancel each other out. There, problem solved.
He need not praise Halo for being Halo as well if he did not find the formula all too exciting. Lets face it - whatever the criticism was ppl are going to throw a tantrum because the score is low. All the - 'I have no problem with the score but just the content' stuff is just bull. I too feel a 1/5 should be reserved for broken games. If he felt the game was average he should have given it a 2 or 3.
It's entirely possible, I haven't read an IGN article since their review of Dead Space 2.
It's not bull, I don't care or remember what score he gave Deus Ex back in the day, but what he wrote about it was still moronic.
They're backed by Microsoft, even if this got a 60 metascore they'll sell a shitload and be better off than 99% of the industry financially. These people just want to have their opinions validated. Like they're not secure enough to just play and enjoy a game, but they have to be told that the game is good and above the rest. I know that mindset, and I glad I broke out of it.
After the tweet you quoted
reply 1: "20 means its barely playable right?"
reply 2: "20 means whatever the website owner wants it to mean. you pay for the hosting, you make the rules"
Kuchera reply: "which is kind of the problem, metacritic assumes everyone is playing by the same rules"
But it doesn't. Scores are weighted.
A review is the critics opinion. If they think the game is boring and worthless then it should get a 1 , even if it is a well polished game.
Metacritic doesn't assume anything. It just collates opinions, that's all. Any repercussions for Metacritic's influence are the fault of the people who take it as some higher authority. If MS is giving out bonuses based on Halo 4's Metacritic score, that is MS's fault, not Metacritic's or QT3's.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
It was in fact 89 before the crazy chick review hit. That brought it down to 88. Yeah, that guy's reviews are by his own rules or whatever, but even when he gives the lowest score, he still can't bring the average down by more than 1%, so I don't think it should be that's big of a deal for people who care about averages. Game had enough 8/10 reviews already that a few more would probably bring it down to 88 eventually even without him.
That said, his point still illustrates why I think Rottentomatoes approach is better. Main score is just based on Like/Dislike.
A million times this.
The industry - publishers and press - has given legitimacy to Metacritic. Metacritic is fucking stupid, sure, in the end it just produces a moronic pointless number. But publishers have embraced that to the point where often times the Metacritic score seems more important than sales, and there are stories of reviewers who try to aim for what they think the Metacritic score will be.
Metacritic just produces an idiotic mean, not an actual measure of game quality. Is this news to Kuchera?
Graphics are simply stunning in this game from what i've watched in video's thus far and from the video reviews when playing the video's in HD, you can see exactly what Halo 4 will be when we are finally playing it. I would even go as far as to say its the best looking game on the 360..maybe even the PS3 but not too sure about PS3 because PS3 has a few jaw dropping visually beautiful games that were exclusively developed for PS3's hardware and PS3 has a few exclusive games coming out in the future that look like they will be pushing the bar even higher for these aging consoles.
I always like the end of a console's life cycle because we begin to see developers tap the metal as far as possible and developers start doing serious brain storming to come up with new graphical effects by ways of tricks, new idea's, software methods, new highly optimized engines that truly take full advantage of the hardware and other ways like using software to mimic current high end hardware graphical effects, i.e. DirectX11 hardware effects,etc
It's just not the graphics that totally impress me but the overall atmosphere of the game looks like its going to be a blast to play. From the reviews i've read..the story is as Epic as it always is even though i felt a few Halo games not up to par with the others but Halo 4 looks like it will be the best of the series.
I just cant get over the visuals though..wow, what ever these developers are doing i sure the heck hope other developers start taping the hardware the way these dev's did...and what ever new graphic tools and techniques MS are handing out to dev's...man...i hope this is the kind of visuals we'll have until the new consoles come out. Forza 4 and Horizon both look like they got some new kind of treatment too in terms of visuals...good going MS!!! I cant wait to play Halo4 ...man
I always like the end of a console's life cycle because we begin to see developers tap the metal as far as possible and developers start doing serious brain storming to come up with new graphical effects by ways of tricks, new idea's, software methods, new highly optimized engines that truly take full advantage of the hardware and other ways like using software to mimic current high end hardware graphical effects, i.e. DirectX11 hardware effects,etc
It's just not the graphics that totally impress me but the overall atmosphere of the game looks like its going to be a blast to play. From the reviews i've read..the story is as Epic as it always is even though i felt a few Halo games not up to par with the others but Halo 4 looks like it will be the best of the series.
I just cant get over the visuals though..wow, what ever these developers are doing i sure the heck hope other developers start taping the hardware the way these dev's did...and what ever new graphic tools and techniques MS are handing out to dev's...man...i hope this is the kind of visuals we'll have until the new consoles come out. Forza 4 and Horizon both look like they got some new kind of treatment too in terms of visuals...good going MS!!! I cant wait to play Halo4 ...man
Truespeed
Member
It's now down to 87. There seems to be a well coordinated pack of shills that flock to the comments section when a score, that does not meet their criteria, is posted on Metacritic.
WrenchNinja
Member
There's hasn't been a wall of shame post yet.How is this different than any other review thread?
Playing it at a buddy's place this week but can't wait, catching up on the thread I almost forgot about the publisher additional bonus...
hopefully they don't lose there bonus because the score isn't 90+ on MC (which might not even apply to MS studios now that I think of it)
hopefully they don't lose there bonus because the score isn't 90+ on MC (which might not even apply to MS studios now that I think of it)
Punchpudding
Member
Just read Tom Chick's review and it is what it is: a subjective review. He explains as much in his FAQ (which he presumably posted after getting shit for giving Journey a 2/5). My gut says he's a willing contrarian or maybe he's genuine; the thing is it doesn't matter. Video games and criticism are entirely subjective and I'd rather be aware of negative opinions and views than only have access to glowing, easy-to-digest reviews (in this sense Metacritic is fulfilling its duties). It's all part of the entertainment, even the reviews/sales dick waving, and that's the way it should stay.
Silicon Knight
Member
I was thinking the same thing. Has to come today, right?
Looks like campaign embargo is up at 6:00 AM so expect it then.
My understanding is that scores are weighted based on a publication's reach/influence/trustworthiness, not based on how it uses its scale. An Edge 4 is weighted identically to an IGN 4.0, which is the same as a Giant Bomb 2/5. Those numbers don't mean the same thing, though.
Edge's uses of a wider scale might have some impact on what Metacritic thinks of their quality.