Yeah thats pretty much a load of bullshit.
How so?
Yeah thats pretty much a load of bullshit.
How so?
93% Skyfall
78% Madagascar 3: Europe's Most Wanted
6% Silent Hill: Revelation 3D
43% Hotel Transylvania
21% Taken 2
23% Fun Size
25% Paranormal Activity 4
91% Rust and Bone
89% Frankenweenie
62% Sinister
But halo is almost objectively fun, where as transformers is not fun to watch at all for people who know about film.
The notion that movies are reviewed any differently than video games is laughable(Rottentomatoes says HI). They call him Tom Click for a reason. What's funnier than his "reviews" are the people that attempt to hold him up as an example of journalistic integrity, when in fact he's nothing more than a click magnet. Ahhh the nobility of being an attention whore.
A movie aggregator exists so movies and games are reviewed the same?
In general is seems there is a much wider range if opinions on movies amongst critics as RT highlights.
That someone thinks there is some objective notion of something as abstract as fun is completely baffling to me.
Movies are reviewed differently, and yes, I'll look at RT...
Oh, here we go:
A nice cross section of review scores there.
How so?
You're missing the point, obviously there are poor scoring games, but the question is how often the scale is used, and to convey what.Oh here we go:
Halo 4 - 87
LBP Karting - 75
Mark of the Ninja - 95
Medal of Honor - 52
007 Legends - 41
The Expendables - 32
Killzone HD - 61
Roller Coaster Tycoon 3D: 37
Legends of Pegasus: 35
Look at that, a nice cross-section of scores there.
You're missing the point, obviously there are poor scoring games, but the question is how often the scale is used, and to convey what.
Here is the last eight films listed on Metacritic for films:
Killing Them Softly - 77
Life of Pi - 88
The Man with the Iron Fists - 54
Silent Hill: Revelation 3D - 15
Chasing Mavericks - 44
Fun Size - 37
Cloud Atlas - 55
Alex Cross - 30
Here are the last eight on 360 (you can't do it per all systems as far as I can tell):
Halo 4 - 87
Pid - 69
Pool Nation - 82
Marvel Avengers: Battle for Earth - 65
Need for Speed: Most Wanted - 85
WWE '13 - 78
Zone of the Enders HD Collection - 74
Assassin's Creed III - 85
An average score of 50% versus 78%.
I disagree, I think most games have deep flaws. I think people just have far far lower standards when it comes to games.You can't compare movies and games like that. Most movies have deep flaws that make you lose interest quickly (bad writing, bad bad acting, bad editing, bad camera work, you name it), and while most game also have flaws, they're usually based around a solid gameplay loop. A gameplay loop is a foundation of every game, a story is foundation of every movie... but vast majority of movies have bad, derivative and utterly un-engaging stories.
I disagree, I think most games have deep flaws. I think people just have far far lower standards when it comes to games.
Chick's issue is the game is pointless. If you own a perfectly functional chess set, and someone offers to sell you a new, prettier chess set which has less pieces, it is completely worthless. Maybe you don't own a chess set, and fancy the new one, that is fine, but the review is his opinion, having played the others.I think games scores are bloated by the very strong relationship between game press and game publishers. Game that are published by smaller companies or don't have publisher support get scored a lot more harshly. Look at something like Cryostasis, a great game in its own right. If the game was released by Sony or MS the pressure from both the publisher and the community to score it higher would be much bigger.
Regardless, Chick's comparison of Halo 4 to Transformers is flawed. Halo 4's essence (its gameplay loop) is very strong, Transformers' essence (its storytelling) is terrible
I disagree, I think most games have deep flaws. I think people just have far far lower standards when it comes to games.
Different chess sets don't alter rule sets.Chick's issue is the game is pointless. If you own a perfectly functional chess set, and someone offers to sell you a new, prettier chess set which has less pieces, it is completely worthless. Maybe you don't own a chess set, and fancy the new one, that is fine, but the review is his opinion, having played the others.
I like the multiplayer a lot, and the single player is OK. Too short for my taste. I think a lot of reviewers over-exaggerated about the difficulty. Either way I would give the game a 8.9 I think it good but just not 9.8 good.
You're missing the point, obviously there are poor scoring games, but the question is how often the scale is used, and to convey what.
Other than the fact that movies are a passive experience and games are not, so reviewing them in the same way makes no sense. Also was it not stated earlier in the thread that in the past he gave one of the recent CODs( the gaming version of a Micheal Bay movie) a high score?
Fine, the chess analogy is flawed, ultimately he believes it is worse, and redundant. It doesn't matter how good the game is, if it's worse, and he believes not worth playing above it's earlier iterations. It is his opinion. He isn't giving purchasing advice to every single person, he is saying that for him, it's bad, and if your circumstances align with his, you might feel the same. That is all.Different chess sets don't alter rule sets.
Regardless, this is still silly. Saying Halo 4 is not a worthy experience and being redundant (if you're already a Halo fan) is like being a chess fan and refusing to play a game against a friend (or a skilled opponent) because you've lready done that before.
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*
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?
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 aboutwithout me knowing what that was, but it happens a few times throughout the game.The InfinityGuy 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?
The point isn't that the same criteria should be used. The point is that like big budget movies big budget games should be looked at critically.
Fine, the chess analogy is flawed, ultimately he believes it is worse, and redundant. It doesn't matter how good the game is, if it's worse, and he believes not worth playing above it's earlier iterations. It is his opinion. He isn't giving purchasing advice to every single person, he is saying that for him, it's bad, and if your circumstances align with his, you might feel the same. That is all.
I don't believe Halo 4 is a 2/10, I think it's excellent actually, but I seriously would consider something like UC3 to be. That game is utterly worthless to me. It doesn't matter that it is technically competent, it's rubbish, and pointless considering I own UC2.
You guys are still arguing about this? What else is there to be said other than anybody who gives Halo 4 a 1/5 is a complete moron?
This is the fundamental difference, yes, I do believe if you think it's a 3/10, you should score it that.I can't stand cover shooter mechanics, does it mean I should give Uncharted 2 a 3/10 score if I were in position to review it for a website? I think the moment you start to feel you're not the target audience you should not be reviewing it, if you're going to focus on your internal distaste for it rather than its inherent qualities.