Statistics! Ignore the outliers.
Agreed. Thanks for aggregating those other reviews btw.
-
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
Statistics! Ignore the outliers.
Agreed. Thanks for aggregating those other reviews btw.
What the hell at these reviews thrashing this game for being too much of the same? As I said earlier in the thread, could you imagine the backlash if they turned it into a straight up COD clone or even something else? But I guess at least these few reviewers would have been content, while everyone else would have been screaming, "bastardization!"
When you have a wildly successful formula, you don't go changing it. Especially if you are stepping into the giant shoes left behind by developers like Bungie. 343 obviously wanted to prove that they could make a great Halo game, and that is exactly what it looks like they achieved. Besides, people play Halo for what it is, not because they want it to be something it's not. But whatever, nothing surprises me with reviews anymore.
When you have a wildly successful formula, you don't go changing it. Especially if you are stepping into the giant shoes left behind by developers like Bungie. 343 obviously wanted to prove that they could make a great Halo game, and that is exactly what it looks like they achieved. Besides, people play Halo for what it is, not because they want it to be something it's not. But whatever, nothing surprises me with reviews anymore.
I think it's ok to expect a professional reviewers score to somewhat reflect the overall production and value of a game to its intended audience, even if it's not their cup of tea. Otherwise it's simply a users opinion and not very (as) informative. We have plenty of reviews so it's not a big deal.
Even if you don't like the story, the multiplayer aspect of Halo 4 looks well put together. I can't see how this is 1/5 material.
No. I said they should be on there.
I think it would be hard to find a professional movie critic that would give a movie a one star if they thought that the camera work, score, acting, visual effects and so forth were well done. Even a boring movie can be appreciated for it's technical merits.
That said, I think that people make too big of a deal about scores. I disliked the spoilers within the text of the review as that seems kind of petty, but his opinion made sense to me and I will manage my expectations appropriately.
What Tom Chick is saying is "my site needs more traffic!" It because of shit like this that i don't trust Metacritic, user reviews would likey be more useful. a 1 or 2 is a score more associated with something like "Lengendary the Box or BMX XXX, a broken game with no redeeming qualities whatsoever. It's funny How people will find extremely high reviews for this game suspect but not the extremely low ones.
If i bought games based on how revolutionary they are i wouldn't have many games, "is it fun to play" is what matters to me. Besides not every game can revolutionise the fps genre with every installment the way COD does.
tinfoilhatman
all of my posts are my avatar
This is Gaf, the Halo\360 backlash is pretty sad anything good for MS\Xbox is "bad" or "uncool"
EDIT....People around here still blame Halo for Microsoft's successful entry into the console space.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Again... to you.
I've played games from big studios that had tens of millions of dollars put in that I felt were extremely bad games. Just because my guy moved when I pressed the button and it didn't crash doesn't mean it's a good or even a mediocre game. I wouldn't hesitate to give those games very bad scores, because I didn't think they were any good.
I guess this comes down to what people expect from reviews. I don't need a review to tell me that Halo 4 runs fine or looks good. MS spent tens of millions of dollars making sure it doesn't crash, you connect to other players in MP, and it looks pretty. I also don't need a reviewer to spot the game 60% just for that.
Calling an review "extremely high" because its 0.8 higher than average rates is already funny.
IIRC, this is exactly what happened with Ebert's notorious 1-star review of Blue Velvet. He loved the technical aspects of the film, but he found the content to be abhorrent.
It does come down to what people expect from reviews, i expect them to be fair, and professional, i don't want reviews that sound like infomercials, nor do i trust those trying to drum up controversy for hits.
That's the kind of thinking that gets you stuff like GI's Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door review, where they gave it a 7 because it was family-friendly so they thought their audience wouldn't like it. It basically makes all reviews for AAA games write themselves because they're well-marketed (so the audience is ready for them) and have high production values.
I have no idea whether Halo 4 is a 10/10 or a 1/10, but I'd rather have reviews use the entire scale for every game than have every game get spotted 5 points because it doesn't crash, has good textures, and the guy responds properly to your button presses.
diffusionx
Gold Member
Unless you can read the reviewers' mind, I don't see how you can know for certain that they were trying to drum up controversy for hits. I certainly didn't see anything unreasonable in the review Chick written.
Another 'famous' review that gets accused of that is Jim Sterling's Assassin's Creed 2 review, but if you read it, he actually went over, in a fair amount of detail, the many problems he had with the game.
What really got me about the Quartertillthree review was this:
"Its all a retread. A slide down the same worn groove when you could instead be playing Borderlands 2, or The Darkness II, or Mass Effect 3, or the new Painkiller re-release, or even Halo: Reach."
Which are all sequels with no real changes to the formula. Why does Halo following it's pattern make it worse than any of those?
"Its all a retread. A slide down the same worn groove when you could instead be playing Borderlands 2, or The Darkness II, or Mass Effect 3, or the new Painkiller re-release, or even Halo: Reach."
Which are all sequels with no real changes to the formula. Why does Halo following it's pattern make it worse than any of those?
Baconsammy
Banned
Biggest console release of the year + Attention Whore = Tom Chick time.
I could have sworn he bashed the SHIT out of Halo Reach.
Neuromancer
Member
They should call him Tom Click, get it?
Because its Halo.
Any reason why some of these aren't included on Metacritic? Still wondering why Xbox Addict's score isn't up.
Yeah I would say that's accurate.
We can look at user scores for "I personally didn't like it inspite of its many qualities, 1/10". There are more elements to games than movies for a professional reviewer to be somewhat objective about, if he's trying to inform the purchase descions of a varied audience and not just telling people what he does and doesn't like. I'm not against reviews like that, I just don't think they're useful.
My guess is it's not a 1/10.
He's explicitly said what his reviews are for in the past.
This is why I regularly read Quarter to Three. Because I enjoy his opinions, even if I don't agree with him. Like I enjoy hearing what my friend says about stuff even though he liked the 2004 film Crash which I thought was awful and would give 1 star out of 5.
The community goes way overboard on review scores.
I can understand if he wants to be similar to movie reviewers and give a rating based on overall experience but even most "1 star movies" are known as the "worst of the worst" (at least for the year in which they are shown in theaters).
It's perfectly fine to think that Halo 4 isn't a 8, 9, or 10 out of 10 game. But a 2 out of 10 (1 out of 5)? Yeah, you better have some really solid things to say to back that up. After looking at the other reviews on the site (since I've never visited it before) it seems like he does the same for other big name games.
Just seems to be a bit of a ploy for attention in my opinion.
It's perfectly fine to think that Halo 4 isn't a 8, 9, or 10 out of 10 game. But a 2 out of 10 (1 out of 5)? Yeah, you better have some really solid things to say to back that up. After looking at the other reviews on the site (since I've never visited it before) it seems like he does the same for other big name games.
Just seems to be a bit of a ploy for attention in my opinion.
dollartaco
Member
I like Tom and his reviews. Getting upset about the fact that a reviewer didn't really like a game is childish.
I will say this, however: Tom has a habit of being very hard on games that either let him down or didn't match the hype. And I don't always think he's particularly fair in doing so, at least when sharing a score with other people without explaining that context. He rates a game against what he wanted it to be and not always for what it is. So, people have labeled him a contrarian for a few controversial scores. I just think he's an easily jilted lover.
I will say this, however: Tom has a habit of being very hard on games that either let him down or didn't match the hype. And I don't always think he's particularly fair in doing so, at least when sharing a score with other people without explaining that context. He rates a game against what he wanted it to be and not always for what it is. So, people have labeled him a contrarian for a few controversial scores. I just think he's an easily jilted lover.
I'm just putting this here. I'm ignoring Tom Chick's review because of 2 reasons.
1) It has spoilers apparently (will not go through it until I actually play the game and finish it).
2) He thought that Halo 4 having 4 player co-op was a new feature even though he has reviewed 3, ODST and Reach. If he missed/overlooked such a big feature in those three games, I'm wondering what he missed/overlooked in this game.
1) It has spoilers apparently (will not go through it until I actually play the game and finish it).
2) He thought that Halo 4 having 4 player co-op was a new feature even though he has reviewed 3, ODST and Reach. If he missed/overlooked such a big feature in those three games, I'm wondering what he missed/overlooked in this game.
dollartaco
Member
Well, some big-name games have been particularly shit. If you opened a GAF thread on release day for a lot of AAA releases and waited for a month before refreshing, I'm sure you'd find that hype often drives the earliest consensus.
That said, is Halo 4 a 1-star game to a broader audience? I haven't played it, but probably not.
Interfectum
Member
Oh man, legendary Tom Chick review. I love the "bu bu this doesn't count on metacritic does it" comments.
And I guess I read some huge spoilers? Nothing really mind blowing in there.
And I guess I read some huge spoilers? Nothing really mind blowing in there.
Baconsammy
Banned
Some dudes are just born to be click magnets.
Interfectum
Member
Not the front page. If you are looking at the review page it looks like it alphabetizes them if they are released on the same day.
Halo review was published on 4th.. the old date still in the article itself. He just changed the date in the list.
Interfectum
Member
Did it say Nov.4 in the review list previously?
Hargenx
Member
The Tofunator
Member
Apparently they only started considering his reviews earlier this year.
Hargenx
Member
Crazy stuff is crazy!
Seems like a pretty relevant update given the hilarious salt.
That's not accurate. His reviews have been on metacritic plenty (that's a per site thing, not a per reviewer thing), just not the QT3 reviews. He stopped freelancing reviews and now only does them for his site, which was listed on metacritic earlier this year.
Hargenx
Member
So Metacritics are VERY stupid, the guy opinion just worth it if it's on one specific site?!
diffusionx
Gold Member
No, he freelanced for site XYZ, and XYZ was on Metacritic, so his review ended up on Metacritic. He stopped freelancing and now all his stuff is on the one site.
Gotta get those hits.
HALO 4: Beautiful, arresting...ultimately dull
http://www.news.com.au/technology/h...much-fun-to-play/story-e6frfro0-1226511115161
No score/10
http://www.news.com.au/technology/h...much-fun-to-play/story-e6frfro0-1226511115161
No score/10
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
Ironic that everybody has been hating on multiplayer this whole time, but it is seeming more and more that in may outshine the campaign relative to the other games. To be honest, I'd rather have it this way than the other way around.
Baconsammy
Banned
The reviews seem pretty consistent. It's got an average review score around 90. Pretty darned consistent.
I was more talking about individual reviewers. For example it would be a bit silly for somebody to be bashing Halo for being more of the same whilst telling us the next COD is fresh and innovative.
I'm not suggesting anybody will do this but there have been some examples in the past of certain people having double standards.
Canis lupus
Member
About Metacritic. How does it work? When a site reviews a multiplatform title they usually only post the score on the 360 version and not the PS3 eventough the review clearly says its multiplatform, or doesn't mention any specific platform it was played on.
This.
Hargenx
Member
That's what I mean, Metacritic is not about Reviewers, is about sites, if a 5 years old make a review for IGN is worth more than Tom in a non-valid site.
Game reviews are far too consistent right now.
Look at the Metacritic reviews for the movie "Melancholia." The movie is technically well-done - it's shot well and well-acted - it's not amateurish. If anything it's shot better than most movies. According to some people in this thread it should deserve at least a 70 just for technical merit.
Rex Reed gave it a ZERO out of 100. Zero! Boston Globe, USA Today and SF Chronicle gave it a 50! But variety and EW gave it 100/100!
They rated it based on how well the movie worked for them. Not based on hype or marketing budget or technical merit.
Transformers: Dark of the Moon is a people-pleasing blockbuster. It's technically well-done. It ranges from 80 to ZERO again. Zero!
The Avengers got a bunch of 40s and 50s.
Almost no matter what movie you choose reviews are all over the place. Meanwhile game reviews are incredibly uniform.