How so?
-
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.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Halo 4: Review Thread
- Thread starter Vire
- Start date
How so?
Baconsammy
Banned
How so?
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.
Movies are reviewed differently, and yes, I'll look at RT...
Oh, here we go:
A nice cross section of review scores there.
Oh, here we go:
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
A nice cross section of review scores there.
But halo is almost objectively fun, where as transformers is not fun to watch at all for people who know about film.
why are you qualifying the transformers statement but not halo?
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.
Baconsammy
Banned
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.
Metacritic doesnt exist so that all games are reviewed the same. That's idiotic. Almost as idiotic as people that grab the outlier and hold it up as the standard for all others to be judged against.
Not a Jellyfish
but I am a sheep
Loved the campaign and just want to say that review stating the game did not have enough big ticket action moments is completely off base.
Baconsammy
Banned
Movies are reviewed differently, and yes, I'll look at RT...
Oh, here we go:
A nice cross section of review scores there.
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.
How so?
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?
MR BLACKMAGIK
Member
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.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.
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%.
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%.
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.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.
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
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
opticalmace
Member
I disagree, I think most games have deep flaws. I think people just have far far lower standards when it comes to games.
I agree. The higher price tags probably contribute to this too. I'm okay with tossing a $5 game I got out of the bargain bin if I don't like it. If I've just dropped $50 on a new release I'd probably try to push through it so as to not feel like I've wasted my money.
Can certainly empathize with Tom Chick on his review, though I am loving Halo 4 so far. The core mechanics and formula are near identical to Halo CE a decade later, but it is still a fascinating formula. Doing a Legendary solo run has thus far been a brutal experience, but one that is thus far becoming my favorite gaming experience in 2012. I live for these sorts of challenges in games.
The co-op feels broken though. Respawns happen instantaneously in the campaign(no longer feel you need to be "safe") and essentially break the challenge, Legendary is just a joke with more than one player. Spartan Ops is utterly pointless and not at all engaging. 343 needs to re-evaluate this stuff for the next game, as I have come away hardly enthused to even play the game with friends. The co-operative element is completely absent when you can blatantly ignore communication and tactical combat approach. I suppose I'll try turning on the skull that removes respawns next time, but meh. So far my time with friends in the game has been absolutely dull given the lack of penalty for death.
Spartan Ops is a terrible replacement for Firefight. Just awful in its current state.
The co-op feels broken though. Respawns happen instantaneously in the campaign(no longer feel you need to be "safe") and essentially break the challenge, Legendary is just a joke with more than one player. Spartan Ops is utterly pointless and not at all engaging. 343 needs to re-evaluate this stuff for the next game, as I have come away hardly enthused to even play the game with friends. The co-operative element is completely absent when you can blatantly ignore communication and tactical combat approach. I suppose I'll try turning on the skull that removes respawns next time, but meh. So far my time with friends in the game has been absolutely dull given the lack of penalty for death.
Spartan Ops is a terrible replacement for Firefight. Just awful in its current state.
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.
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.
Baconsammy
Banned
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.
I've beaten the game on Normal and am now halfway thru on Legendary. Played a ton of multi and all of Spartan OPs that was included. The game is in no way a 9.8/10. It's also nowhere near the outlier low scores either. I'd give it an 85. They improved so much from past games, and made some aspects worse(Spartan Ops is just bad so far. There's nothing compelling about it at all, and for this they removed Firefight, which was flawed by also fun). Best of all is that the game stands as proof that someone other than Bungie can make an excellent Halo game. It provides a lot of hope for Halo 5 on the next Xbox.
Baconsammy
Banned
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.
The point is that games and movies are not remotely the same thing and thus shouldn't ever be reviewed the same way. Music isn't reviewed the same as movies, games, books etc. Why should I respect someone's opinion that thinks a game should be treated like a movie? That's dumb. But it's not why I don't respect Tom Chick. I have no respect for him because he has a long history of being a click whore. Reviews dont bother me regardless. I review for myself.
Damn, double post. Sorry.
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?
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.
Like movies, He wants their to be a broader look at games despite the budget. If it runs and has a big budget it can get no lower than a 7. Who does that serve?
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.
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.
Freeza Under The Shower
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*
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?
Sounds like a modern shooter campaign alright...
not a good thing.
Baconsammy
Banned
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.
No, the same criteria shouldnt be used to judge different forms of media. The insinuation that big budget games aren't looked at critically is hilarious.
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.
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.
edit: in the end Chick's Halo 4 review is pure trolling, just like his Deus Ex review was way back. You'd think he would grow up in those 12 year, but he's as childish as he ever was.
Baconsammy
Banned
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?
His website isn't going to click itself.
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.
Tom Chick wrote his review for his website. It's no different to you shit talking a game on GAF, other than the fact he is listed on Metacritic and you aren't.
I don't want people to guess what the public will think about a game, that's worthless, I want to know the tastes of specific writers, and if they align with mine, that way it actually can be useful.
For example, Nier is one of the best games I've played this generation, up there with Portal and Journey. It reviewed terribly, for good reasons, and I totally overlooked it because of that. It wasn't until people on GAF who I know have similar tastes championed it that I thought it might have hidden merit, and tried it. That holds far greater value than someone attempting to review for the masses. People know exactly how they feel, they can only guess at what others will.
Here's the biggest gripe about the campaign story, which people have been discussing in the spoilers thread: crucial plot points about very important characters in the story namely (actual spoiler)
are contained within the hidden Terminals. If you know all of that info, the story makes a TON of sense.
If not, well it's confusing. Especially since a lot of the story is delivered very quickly in 2-3 minute mid-game that doesn't contextualize things properly. Which really begs me to question how many reviewers actually found all the Terminals and thought it was okay to deliver such important story information through them instead of having all of it up front for context.
It's a good story IMO, but the way it's delivered is absolutely awful and deserves the criticism.
The Didact and The Librarian
If not, well it's confusing. Especially since a lot of the story is delivered very quickly in 2-3 minute mid-game that doesn't contextualize things properly. Which really begs me to question how many reviewers actually found all the Terminals and thought it was okay to deliver such important story information through them instead of having all of it up front for context.
It's a good story IMO, but the way it's delivered is absolutely awful and deserves the criticism.