-
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
lol... it shows an error.. 5 days and now this,., lol
Hydrargyrus
Member
I can only read the review The videos seems to be not available
Just got fixed. 9.0.
Also at 1:30 I think that's one of the worst grenade throws I've seen.
Some factual errors in regard to Halo 3 as well. Seriously how does someone not fact check this stuff?
They have every right to complain. It is their opinion and should be respected as much as somebody who is critical of a 10/10 or 1/10 score. People seem to make it out that only critical people can lash out, with over simplification of opinions of people that don't agree with them. Which is pitting people against people for the sake of nothing but trying to make the other guy look like the bad guy.
Game reviewers, developers and publishers should not be put on this high pedestal. If they talk shit, they should be called out for their shit and should not get a free pass because that, is, like, their, opinion, man, deal, with, it.
IGN's review was garbage, filled with so much hyperbole that it is sickening. Eurogamer's and Giantbomb's where fantastic with decent amout of critique and praise.
The game is very pretty. The campaign sounds kind of disappointing to me. The story sounds terrible, and it's a shame you're with other people. I was really hoping you were stranded somewhere alone. Still, should be fun.
Alot of reviews have claimed the story to be a strong point, but are disappointed that they didn't shake up the formula from the normal mission progression.
I wish they would've done something like ODST, but I'll take what we got.
I wanted them to do something different, but it's more like it feels like they implied something a lot more radical than it is. I hadn't followed the game much at all, but that first reveal was like Halo Prime, which obviously lots of people have commented on, and that was very exciting to me, and I thought the premise was alone on a new world, with new weapons, etc. I even remember David Ellis being on the Bombcast around when that trailer was shown, and the guys were talking about how at the start of the trailer it looks like normal Halo, then you see the new enemies and weapon, and it's a cool twist, and Ellis said 'you fell for it'. It seemed like it was going to be very different. It looks like it's the same but prettier, which is fine, Halo is awesome, and I'm happy to play another one of course, it's just not what I expected.
"Finish the fight" critique is the dumbest thing I still hear users and lesser extent reviewers complain about, there was always conflict even before the Covenant war and bound to be after it. We still did not get the orgin of the Flood, Rings, The Forerunner Facilities and Artifacts. There was still huge chunks of story left out, but people keep thinking it was the indication that the story of Chief would stop and keep clinging on a marketing tagline.
Phat Michael
Banned
Just saw the 5 inch floppy review of Halo 4 - usually junglist is ok, but one thing is he didnt even once mention the improvement in graphics or sound..
I think that's definitely fair, but the sense of discovery and being on a new world seems to be a big part of the first few missions of the game from what I've seen. I really hope they nailed the feeling of Halo 1 in terms of discovery.
But yeah I totally agree, and it's something Gerstmann brought up in his review as well. I'd definitely like for 343i to change the campaign structure a bit. Now that they've got their feet wet, they have a ton of room to expand.
They really had to play it safe with this one since there's so many variables that go into taking a huge franchise from one of the best devs in the industry. I can only imagine that 343 will take the criticism to heart and make Halo 5 step out of the paradigm. They obviously have the talent to do it.
The story sounds terrible? Do you mean from what you gleamed from the Gametrailers review, which gave the story a 9.5? Or are you saying based on everything you've read, you don't like where it goes?
I know how it ends actually, or I think I do, I read spoilers on wiki by accident, but they could be incorrect as sort of double trickery thing. And no, not just from the GT review, although it does look terrible in there. The writing is awful. I don't know how prevalent it is though, which is what really matters. Most game stories are garbage, but most are minimal, maybe it's just because this review focuses so much of it's time displaying cutscenes that it makes it feel like it's more story heavy than it is.
There are still some reviews coming in:
X360 Magazine - 9/10
Push-Start - 9.5/10
USA Today - 4/4
Entertainment Focus - 9/10
IBTimes - 8/10
WC - 5/5
TrueAchievements - 4/5
Heritage - 4/5
ITF Gaming - 9.8/10
Clickonline - 5/5
The Telegraph - 4/5
El33tonline - 4/5
MMN - 4/5
Gaming Union - 9/10
GamePlanet - 8.5/10
Atomic Gamer - 8/10
The Independent - 4/5
Paste - 8/10
X360 Magazine - 9/10
Push-Start - 9.5/10
USA Today - 4/4
Entertainment Focus - 9/10
IBTimes - 8/10
WC - 5/5
TrueAchievements - 4/5
Heritage - 4/5
ITF Gaming - 9.8/10
Clickonline - 5/5
The Telegraph - 4/5
El33tonline - 4/5
MMN - 4/5
Gaming Union - 9/10
GamePlanet - 8.5/10
Atomic Gamer - 8/10
The Independent - 4/5
Paste - 8/10
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Cognitive dissonance is huge in this one.
This happens to most sequel. A lot of thing change in a sequel, hurr durr it´s not the game that we all love. Change a bit, hurr durr, copy past from previous titles. This is why i prefer user reviews (gaffers) than those metacritics reviewers.
GT reviews ado usually have a lot of spoilers in them. That´s why a lot of people avoid them.
If you're sensitive about spoilers and want to go into Halo 4 blind. Definitely avoid the GT Review. Personally they didn't give anything away that would bug me, but I could see a couple sections of the review that would make some folks wish they hadn't seen the footage.
Shake Appeal
Member
It is my dearest hope that outlying 2/10 reviews accelerate us toward that glorious day where metacritic scores are widely understood to be irrelevant to anything.
Will stay away. Thanks.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Gonna have to Redbox this this weekend. This is the first time I've been hyped for a Halo game since Halo 2.
Yeah. It really is sad when companies assign bonuses basic on metacritic scores and such.
Ein Bear
Member
The story was my biggest problem with the game really, it's all a load of rubbish that doesn't make much sense. Maybe it's better if you read the books or something, but really, you shouldn't have to do that.
*Actual Real Spoilers*
The story reminded me a bit of Gears of War actually. In that things just sort of... happen, and characters start talking about stuff without ever actually filling the player in. At first I thought I'd missed something when Cortana suddenly starts talking about
without me knowing what that was, but it happens a few times throughout the game.
*Actual Real Spoilers*
So an evil Forerunner guy was sealed in a lava ball. And he wants to... turn everyone into a robot zombie or something? He was compared to the Flood at one point. Also he's telekenetic I guess. Nope, I had no idea what was going on. Then a lady takes you to a magic realm and evolves you.
There are more Spartans now, out of nowhere.
Why are you fighting the Covenant? Chief questions it at the start of the game, and the only explanation given is "A lot can change in four years!"
Cortana dying at the end isn't very satisfying, since the entire plot of the game has been focused around you trying to save her. And I have no idea what she does exactly to save you from a nuke detonating in your hands. You just stand and talk to her against a blue background like the ending of Ocarina of Time... is she supposed to have made a shield out of the bridge or something?
There are more Spartans now, out of nowhere.
Why are you fighting the Covenant? Chief questions it at the start of the game, and the only explanation given is "A lot can change in four years!"
Cortana dying at the end isn't very satisfying, since the entire plot of the game has been focused around you trying to save her. And I have no idea what she does exactly to save you from a nuke detonating in your hands. You just stand and talk to her against a blue background like the ending of Ocarina of Time... is she supposed to have made a shield out of the bridge or something?
The story reminded me a bit of Gears of War actually. In that things just sort of... happen, and characters start talking about stuff without ever actually filling the player in. At first I thought I'd missed something when Cortana suddenly starts talking about
The Infinity
Guy appears, throws you around, runs off. Next level, Cortana: "We have to stop the Didact!"... the what? You come across some marines. Cortana: "Let's show these Spartans how it's done!" ...Spartans?
There are so many reviews that the weighting is more or less irrelevant.
Gozer the Gozerian
Member
Yeah the story really was bizarre in an off-putting way. Like the writers from the weird Desmond story crap from the later AC games took over.
The whole meeting with the Librarian was just dumb. So she planted the "seed" of humanity on earth, and somehow encoded in our genes or whatever that thousands of generations down the line the Spartan-II program would be created and a lifelike AI called Cortana would be created and that AI would be matched to one of those Spartans and somewhere down the line he would end up on Requiem and unleash Didact accidentally to become the Librarian's secret weapon and defeat the Didact? (Oh then "evolved" him some more too) What?
I'm giving fair warning, don't click this if you don't like spoilers.
A slide show of the Legendary Ending http://www.examiner.com/article/click-if-you-dare-the-leaked-halo-4-legendary-ending
Gozer the Gozerian
Member
Um or you could just look up the legendary ending on youtube...
Lol, you know those Metal Gear games everyone loves? I think they fucking suck. I'm not trying to get attention, I just don't like the games.
If there's anyone to be mad at, it's the godawful publishers that use Metacritic scores as bonus incentives for their employees. Stop making Metacritic scores important in the first place.
Interfectum
Member
I guess I'm naive to think, as a collective, after all the shit that's gone on the past couple weeks that we would be over petty shit such as Metacritic averages. Especially over a game such as Halo 4. It's sales won't be effected nor will it stop more Halos from being made. I guess for fanboy / system wars fodder you might be a little saddened that Chick's review is counted, but besides that, who gives a shit?
If you want to take away Chick's review then you should also take away all of those bought and paid for 10/10 reviews too (IGN being the main offender).
If you want to take away Chick's review then you should also take away all of those bought and paid for 10/10 reviews too (IGN being the main offender).
chickdigger802
Banned
Chick's review was a fun read.
I know people may not love his trollish reviews, but fuck, saying it ain't 'objective enough' doesn't help your argument
But yeah, all the big AAA games this fall under 90 on metacritic? Games are dead.
I know people may not love his trollish reviews, but fuck, saying it ain't 'objective enough' doesn't help your argument
But yeah, all the big AAA games this fall under 90 on metacritic? Games are dead.
I have seen worse threads than this.
The first half were filled with people posting doritos photoshops every time someone gave the game more than a 9/10.
Then the 8/10 reviews were debated by HaloGAF regulars in a reasonable way, few meltdowns, almost to the point of being boring.
then somebody posted a 7/10 review stating in essence that the game should be more linear and have ADS. Then a long discussion broke out over the ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE REVIEW, not the score.
After that, the game's metacritic rating dropped below 90, and that too happened without much drama.
And since then it has been people drive by posting about all the "meltdowns" that has apparently occurred in this thread. it is a review thread, it exists to debate the merits of the reviews.
Actually I'm a bit disappointed, as far as review threads go this one has been tame.
The first half were filled with people posting doritos photoshops every time someone gave the game more than a 9/10.
Then the 8/10 reviews were debated by HaloGAF regulars in a reasonable way, few meltdowns, almost to the point of being boring.
then somebody posted a 7/10 review stating in essence that the game should be more linear and have ADS. Then a long discussion broke out over the ACTUAL CONTENT OF THE REVIEW, not the score.
After that, the game's metacritic rating dropped below 90, and that too happened without much drama.
And since then it has been people drive by posting about all the "meltdowns" that has apparently occurred in this thread. it is a review thread, it exists to debate the merits of the reviews.
Actually I'm a bit disappointed, as far as review threads go this one has been tame.
I have to admit I'm surprised Metacritic doesn't remove the high / low statistical outliers from their more heavily weighted review sites. Then again they also attempt to convert both Giantbombs and 1up's reviews to their 100 point scale so I guess I shouldn't be that surprised.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
Tom Chick's right. The game deserves a low score!
~remembers Tom Chick's Journey review~
Fuck Tom Chick!
~remembers Tom Chick's Journey review~
Fuck Tom Chick!
strikeselect
You like me, you really really like me!
I do wonder how the Microsoft bigwigs are looking at Halo 4's review situation. Being the most expensive game they've ever funded had to set some high expectations around the office.
It's the first main entry in the series not developed by Bungie and it's averaging sub-90 on Metacritic. Not a good look.
Trouble in paradise?
It's the first main entry in the series not developed by Bungie and it's averaging sub-90 on Metacritic. Not a good look.
Trouble in paradise?
Uh, no. It's all about sales. How much money will it bring in. And if they read some of the reviews giving the game low scores, they'll see the reviewer is saying some absurd shit on why the game is being docked points.
Baconsammy
Banned
They're probably paying more attention to the huge lines of people wanting to buy the game, limited edition consoles etc. If sales eventually prove to be worse than Reach, then it's time to evaluate.
He was unsure about their being 4 player co-op in past games. Yep. He's a moron.
I have nothing wrong with Tom Chick being critical of Halo 4 being a retread of Halo but to actually think that Reach Firefight was better than ODST Firefight is sooooooooooo wrong. Then he goes out and says that you could be playing Mass Effect 3 like that's a marked improvement over the gameplay systems in a Halo game. Still, he has a right to an opinion.
BlockheadBrown
Member
Can anyone verify that Campaign Matchmaking is available in Halo 4? I haven't been able to find a straight answer.
It is but they are peripheral missions with cinematic endings that add to the primary story. The actual campaign mode does not have a co-op option.
source: http://www.gametrailers.com/reviews/myiifh/halo-4-review
Silly.Mikey
Banned
So wait, theres no campaign co-op at all? Didnt they say it was playable campaign and spartan ops at halo fest?
Of course it's playable, you just have to send invites yourself. You can't hop in with randoms beecause there isn't a matchmaking server. It's like ODST firefight.
Silly.Mikey
Banned
Ah ok, thats fine by me. So gametrailers said there was no co-op campaign in the review? I thought they did this for a living.
It should be noted for the record that Reach's Campaign matchmaking wasn't available at launch either so people wouldn't buy the game and then get dropped into the last level their first time playing.