• 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

F

Feindflug

Member
Kydd BlaZe said:
Kind of off topic a bit, but I find it pretty funny that Tom Chick's abhorrent Uncharted 3 review wasn't even posted on Metacritic, but it happens to rear it's ugly head here for Halo 4.
Click to expand...

Yeah that's weird.

Also Tom Chicks gave RE: ORC a 3/5. lol

And a comment from the BigPond GameArena review:

The combat overall leaves much to be desired. Halo is so rigid in its linearity that the player is forced to learn gunfight sequences by rote - remember where the snipers are, make sure you find the Watcher quickly to put him down, memorise where extra ammo is.
Click to expand...

This must be the first time that I've read such complaints about a Halo game.
 
M

madmackem

Member
Feindflug said:
Yeah that's weird.

Also Tom Chicks gave RE: ORC a 3/5. lol

And a comment from the BigPond GameArena review:



This must be the first time that I've read such complaints about a Halo game.
Click to expand...

I wonder what he gives cod games then, there more learn the scene more than any halo game is.
 
U

Uncharted Waves

Banned
Feindflug said:
Yeah that's weird.

Also Tom Chicks gave RE: ORC a 3/5. lol

And a comment from the BigPond GameArena review:



This must be the first time that I've read such complaints about a Halo game.
Click to expand...
This is all the more reason why I can't wait to play it to see for myself if there's any validity to that claim or is it influenced by "I'm tired of seeing the same halo" complaint. Also yes the fact that the Tom Chick review was included here but not for uc3 is suspicious to say the least. It really makes me question the reliability of the metacritic system.
 
Kydd BlaZe

Kydd BlaZe

Member
Uncharted Waves said:
This is all the more reason why I can't wait to play it to see for myself if there's any validity to that claim or is it influenced by "I'm tired of seeing the same halo" complaint. Also yes the fact that the Tom Chick review was included here but not for uc3 is suspicious to say the least. It really makes me question the reliability of the metacritic system.
Click to expand...
Yeah, there really seems to be some shady shit going on with Metacritic.
 
S

sonicmj1

Member
danwarb said:
No, it's just hard to believe that a Halo game built with the resources of 343i is a 1/5. They should take quality into account.
Click to expand...

I wonder what other metric he used when he came up with that score, since he didn't go with "quality".

Probably "Time to Crate".
 
W

wotta

Member
Jackswastedlife said:
I can certainly explain my position, yes.

Let me start by saying that I don't think Halo 4 is a bad game by any stretch of the imagination.

It's think it looks great, I loved the multiplayer, and it's a very polished experience overall.

That being said, the campaign was essentially:

1.) OMGZ!! We're under attack/have to escape/have to stop so and so.
2.) Go blow up that shield generator/push that button/ kill a bunch of dudes!
3.) Now run back through the level and kill even more of the same 8 dudes!

Some of the indoor segments were really solid, but when playing the game in outdoor maps going through the scenarios mentioned above, it gold REALLY old REALLY quick.

If you played Rage, imagine the last level of that game, on repeat, for roughly 8 hours. That is essentially the structure of Halo 4. It forces you to use way too many bullets to kill the same enemies over and over and over again for hours with little variation on how that is accomplished.

I understand some people enjoy arena shooters of that ilk, but frankly, it was a real chore for me.

The funny thing is, the first 15 minutes was another story entirely. The intro was awesome. I honestly felt playing it that if the game kept this up for the entire run, it would have been a primary contender for GOTY and 10 on our scale.

But after that, the game quickly degenerated into the sequences outlined above, and I was left wishing it would get better, or mix it up a bit, or deliver some moments like the early stages of the game. But it didn't really manage to do so in my opinion.

Mind you, they tried to mix it up with some vehicle sequences, most of which were satisfying enough because, well, blowing shit up is fun - but on the whole, there's a lot of back-tracking, a lot of rubber-stamp environment design, and very little going on despite the size of the levels.

They do manage to pack their environment with a ton of objects, and they all look fantastic, but they never did anything spectacular with them in-game outside of the first mission, and that left the game feeling very flat and very repetitive from where I was sitting.

And since folks are so bent out of shape about my comment on iron sights, I'll elaborate a bit here, too.

The thought came to me when I noticed that there is in fact a controller option called "Fishstick" in Halo 4 that gives you the same layout and functionality as most FPS titles on the market by allowing you to swap your zoom function to the left trigger.

However, several of the key guns don't offer sight-focused views, meaning that you use your binoculars and immediately jump out to the standard viewing angle upon firing. It's very jarring, and smacks as a half-assed concession to folks who want that feature in-game.

And yeah, I know Halo fans like what they know, just like most fans of most games. A lot of people argue that a fully-implemented iron sight option would somehow pervert the purity of the game, but frankly, I think they're just afraid of change, and here's why:

At it's core, Halo is about massive, arena-style environments. Ranged combat plays a big role, and when facing key enemies, well-placed shots are critical. As such, aim is pretty fucking important. That being said, a good 50% (and I'm estimating here) of the guns have scope-based aiming components.

This means that the idea of zooming in and shooting isn't foreign to the series, and in fact, is a large part of your tactical arsenal as a player.

With that in mind, and the importance of head shots to combat, it seems like a very logical enhancement to me to offer the OPTION to make use of them. That way, you'd respect legacy folks who like they way their cake is baked, and also allow people who appreciate a higher degree of ease and realism alongside what I and many others feel is a more precise aiming to enjoy the feature.

The funny part is, the developer seems to at least acknowledge that there are some people out there who feel the same way, or the "Fishstick" option wouldn't even exist, so seeing so many call me a CoD fan boy because I believe a "proper" (or more to the point - complete) implementation of this scheme would actually be appreciated and enhance gameplay without impacting the overall design and difficulty of the game -- it just feels like fanboy knee-jerking to me.

And again, I get it. I'd be pissed if, say, Dark Souls suddenly became easy or SOCOM stopped trying to be a tactical shooter and became a Call of Du...err..ok, so that kind of happened with S4 - but anyways, I'm not suggesting that 343i get away from the roots of the series at all.

I'm suggesting that they actually build on them instead of rehashing them over and over again.

To me, Halo is about three core things:

1.) Story - People love the art, characters, and drama of this series, and understandably so. I don't think anything I've mentioned would change that one bit.

2.) Advanced AI Behaviors - The AI in Halo is amazing, and does some really crazy shit. I don't think that needs to stop, either.

3.) MP - The multiplayer in Halo is a well-respected crowd favorite, and it got a lot better with this iteration. I didn't say word one about them adopting anything from other games, though they already made that decision on their own. It didn't "kill" MP at all, and my guess is most will feel this is the best Halo MP experience yet.

Anyways, all that laid out on the table, my point is just that Halo's basic principals are still very true to the ones laid out in Combat Evolved. And sure, that's great for folks who are more in love with other areas of the game, but ultimately, if this were a sports game, we'd be calling Halo 4 a roster update with better graphics, and I think fans deserve more, even if they are afraid of it.

Based on the number of slams I've taken from people who haven't even played the game yet, it's pretty evident that people don't like anyone to talk shit about their baby. But frankly, I'm in the business I am in to make people feel like their preconceived opinion is right just because they want it to be.

I love the fiction and they clearly have a talented, passionate staff behind the wheel, but having played a good 10 campaigns this year that offered more entertainment, strategy and playability than Halo 4, I felt the way the impression I came away with was worth expressing, regardless of the anger it may incur.

I think it's important to speak with conviction. I think Halo has room to grow, and I also think if no one actually has the nuts to say it, the team is much less likely to even think it's a need.

Just my two cents.
Click to expand...

Having completed and reviewed the game myself, I have to agree with everything you say above.
 
D

danwarb

Member
sonicmj1 said:
I wonder what other metric he used when he came up with that score, since he didn't go with "quality".

Probably "Time to Crate".
Click to expand...

If you're writing reviews with the intent of helping your readers, you don't give a Halo game a 1/5 simpy because you're bored of Halo. The complaint is pretty much "more of the same".

If it's less about informative reviews and more about telling people what types of game you don't like, then fair enough. I'd expect a 1/5 game to be broken and almost unplayable. Not worth bothering with whether you like Halo or not.
 
B

BigDaddyFatSack

Banned
So, I just found out that most reviewers who gave this game 9's and 10's didn't play the retail version of the game thoroughly. They played tid-bits of good portion of the single player campaign instead.
 
R

REMEMBER CITADEL

Banned
Kydd BlaZe said:
Yeah, there really seems to be some shady shit going on with Metacritic.
Click to expand...

No shit, it's been like that forever. Metacritic has never been any good for anything except for gathering links to many different reviews in one place. Metascore as a concept is broken beyond belief.

It frankly baffles me how developers and even publishers - hell, journalists should be the first to realize that the system is deeply flawed so add them to the mix as well - haven't publicly rioted against it en masse yet.
 
P

PairOfFilthySocks

Member
B.O.O.M said:
I don't agree with blaming COD to be perfectly honest.
Click to expand...

Me neither. Talk about misguided. COD is not responsible for the current gaming landscape. Hate on the creatively bankrupt devs, people.

EDIT:
Majanew said:
A 1/5 and 5.5/10 means the game should have some glaring technical problems. Some of those reviewing games are some of the dumbest fucks around.
Click to expand...

1/5 and 5.5/10 mean the same thing? Dat 7-10 scale.
 
B

BigDaddyFatSack

Banned
Pok3R Fac3D said:
care to give an example of one of the reviews?
Click to expand...

Without spoiling much, I've been playing the game over the weekend (I love my local shop) and my experiences so far have been on par with the EGM review. Except I still don't think Halo needs an iron sight.

Word of advice to everyone planning on picking it up at midnight: Just don't expect it to be revolutionary. Just enjoy the game for what it is.
 
R

REMEMBER CITADEL

Banned
BigDaddyFatSack said:
Without spoiling much, I've been playing the game over the weekend (I love my local shop) and my experiences so far have been on par with the EGM review. Except I still don't think Halo needs an iron sight.
Click to expand...

Oh, so it's based on your opinion alone. It sounded as if you had some actual proof.


Word of advice to everyone planning on picking it up at midnight: Just don't expect it to be revolutionary. Just enjoy the game for what it is.
Click to expand...

I don't think any sane person would expect this game to represent a revolution in Halo design, let alone FPS design in general.
 
D

danwarb

Member
BigDaddyFatSack said:
Without spoiling much, I've been playing the game over the weekend (I love my local shop) and my experiences so far have been on par with the EGM review. Except I still don't think Halo needs an iron sight.

Word of advice to everyone planning on picking it up at midnight: Just don't expect it to be revolutionary. Just enjoy the game for what it is.
Click to expand...

That's not what you said. Which reviewers didn't play the full game?
 
J

jet1911

Member
BigDaddyFatSack said:
Word of advice to everyone planning on picking it up at midnight: Just don't expect it to be revolutionary. Just enjoy the game for what it is.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone expect this game to be a revolution. Or the second coming of baby Jesus. Reading some of the more negative reviews it seems that certain people had some weird expectations that even the fans of the series don't have.
 
C

CTE

Member
BigDaddyFatSack said:
Without spoiling much, I've been playing the game over the weekend (I love my local shop) and my experiences so far have been on par with the EGM review. Except I still don't think Halo needs an iron sight.

Word of advice to everyone planning on picking it up at midnight: Just don't expect it to be revolutionary. Just enjoy the game for what it is.
Click to expand...

That was totally misleading the way you first worded things.
 
I

IOnEI Falcon

Member
Man, I am so excited for this game. I haven't been this pumped for a release of a game since Perfect Dark on the 64! If the person in front of me would have grabbed the last copy of it then, I would have pistol whipped someone.
 
F

Felix Lighter

Member
BigDaddyFatSack said:
So, I just found out that most reviewers who gave this game 9's and 10's didn't play the retail version of the game thoroughly. They played tid-bits of good portion of the single player campaign instead.
Click to expand...

It's pretty funny that you just came out and said that and it was based on absolutely nothing.
 
D

Demon Ice

Banned
BigDaddyFatSack said:
So, I just found out that most reviewers who gave this game 9's and 10's didn't play the retail version of the game thoroughly. They played tid-bits of good portion of the single player campaign instead.
Click to expand...

BigDaddyFatSack said:
Without spoiling much, I've been playing the game over the weekend (I love my local shop) and my experiences so far have been on par with the EGM review. Except I still don't think Halo needs an iron sight.
Click to expand...

Lmao.... that's not how you "find out" something.
 
M

MasLegio

Banned
A game that is technically broken should not recieve a score at all, neither should it be reviewed but the review should be replaced with a warning to people not to buy the game at all. Either that or the score should be 0.

If it is working it is up to the reviewer to describe how he experienced the game, not the readers.
 
diffusionx

diffusionx

Gold Member
watership said:
Nah. Tom has always been pretty harsh. But 2 out of 10 ventures into the realm of "This game doesn't even work." sort of score.
Click to expand...

To you.

Tom's review system is closer to movie reviewers, where a "one star review" means it is a bad movie. It doesn't mean it isn't a movie that looks good, that has good actors, etc. It's just not good. That is what Tom is saying - that Halo 4 is a bad game, in spite of its obvious competencies.
 
D

danwarb

Member
diffusionx said:
To you.

Tom's review system is closer to movie reviewers, where a "one star review" means it is a bad movie. It doesn't mean it isn't a movie that looks good, that has good actors, etc. It's just not good. That is what Tom is saying - that Halo 4 is a bad game, in spite of its obvious competencies.
Click to expand...

And if it isn't a bad game, we can dismiss Tom and his reviewing technique.
 
diffusionx

diffusionx

Gold Member
danwarb said:
And if it isn't a bad game, we can dismiss Tom and his reviewing technique.
Click to expand...

If you think it is a good game, then you can write your own review. That's how these things work.

FWIW I wish more game critics used a movie-type system instead of the 7-10 scale.
 
F

Felix Lighter

Member
eznark said:
QT3 is a metacritic approved site, why wouldn't it be included? What good is an aggregator that picks and chooses based on individual reviews?
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm not sure why anyone would expect anything different. Metacritic is doing what Metacritic does. The review belongs there.

Also, I highly doubt NeoGAF members are basing their purchase decision of a Halo game on the Metacritic score, so I'm not sure why anyone cares around here, except for those on the development team or Microsoft.
 
L

Lothars

Member
diffusionx said:
To you.

Tom's review system is closer to movie reviewers, where a "one star review" means it is a bad movie. It doesn't mean it isn't a movie that looks good, that has good actors, etc. It's just not good. That is what Tom is saying - that Halo 4 is a bad game, in spite of its obvious competencies.
Click to expand...
I've never been a fan of Tom's work including Tom and Bruce but I don't actually agree with you regarding that it is a bad game, I think it's just a game Tom didn't like and he reviewed it accordingly.

There's nothing wrong with his review.
 
G

Goodacre0081

Member
diffusionx said:
If you think it is a good game, then you can write your own review. That's how these things work.

FWIW I wish more game critics used a movie-type system instead of the 7-10 scale.
Click to expand...

that's why we need demos of every game. we can get our own opinion on the game.

seriously, reviewing games? gaming journalism? fuck sakes get a real job.
 
S

shinnn

Member
diffusionx said:
To you.

Tom's review system is closer to movie reviewers, where a "one star review" means it is a bad movie. It doesn't mean it isn't a movie that looks good, that has good actors, etc. It's just not good. That is what Tom is saying - that Halo 4 is a bad game, in spite of its obvious competencies.
Click to expand...

What you are talking about. His review scale is "more popular = lowest score = more clicks".

Even if everyone uses the 5/5 rating, it will be 4/5, 5/5 most of the time.. not 1/5.
 
R

Rad-

Member
Brewster's Wallet said:
So the system should only include good reviews then?
Click to expand...

The system should ignore a set amount of highest scores and a set amount of lowest scores. So for example, ignore the highest 3 scores and the lowest 3 scores. Would make metacritic much better, at least in my eyes.

This would help iron out some of the troll reviews, as well as the uber fanboy reviews.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jusant - Don't Nod's new game is out today. Early reviews very positive.
2
89
6K
FunkMiller replied
Animal Well | Review Thread
Analysis Review
4
812
Fbh replied
Tekken 8 | Review Thread
News Analysis Review 2 3 4 5 6
263
18K
Klosshufvud replied
Gamereactor.fi Tekken 8 Review Taken Down After Game Director Reviews Their Review
News
35
3K
Mr.Phoenix replied
My 1 year self requested exile is over.
2
74
5K
Ozzy Onya A2Z replied
Top Bottom