ViewtifulJC
Banned
Almost no matter what movie you choose reviews are all over the place. Meanwhile game reviews are incredibly uniform.
You should go look at RE6 metacritic every once and awhile. Bad game, bad reviews.
Almost no matter what movie you choose reviews are all over the place. Meanwhile game reviews are incredibly uniform.
You should go look at RE6 metacritic every once and awhile. Bad game, bad reviews.
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.
Almost no matter what movie you choose reviews are all over the place. Meanwhile game reviews are incredibly uniform.
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.
Eh, honestly I'd compare a game review with a blu-ray or DVD review, not the film itself. Games pack a lot more content outside of their single player experience. Enough content that I would say warrants an objective review of the game's feature set and "complete package."
It's easy to say Halo plays like more Halo, but when a game gives you a full fledged map editor, a multiplayer mode, single player, and a second weekly campaign, the wealth of content alone makes it hard for me to warrant a hypothetical 1/5 review. And sure, lets say all of this content is crap and should the game still be given any merit if all of it's extra content is pure crap? Sure, but I highly doubt this is the case with Halo 4.
Then you shouldn't give it a 1/5 on your hypothetical review site.
Game reviews are essentially software reviews. Reviewers are using a large portion of the scale to inform the reader that the execution is competent enough for the software to be fit for its intended purpose.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.
More of the critic reviews are starting to read like the user reviews.Let's put this in perspective here: http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/halo-reach
I also like the review history of Quarter to Three:
Halo 4: 20
The Darkness 2: 100
SSX: 100
Uh the Darkness 2 is better than Halo 4? I highly doubt this.
To one reviewer, yes.
I also like the review history of Quarter to Three:
Halo 4: 20
The Darkness 2: 100
SSX: 100
Uh the Darkness 2 is better than Halo 4? I highly doubt this.
I'm sorry but in a purely technical sense this is far from accurate.
I also like the review history of Quarter to Three:
Halo 4: 20
The Darkness 2: 100
SSX: 100
Uh the Darkness 2 is better than Halo 4? I highly doubt this.
I haven't played Halo so no idea but I see no mention of technical aspects in Toms review.
That guy's allowed to have opinions, regardless of how dumb I perceive them. I do understand your point though. Really seems like that guy's just trying to get clicks.
But those are things that should be taken into account when reviewing a video game. Halo 4 looks and sounds absolutely amazing.
Not to mention it has an insane amount of replayability.
Why would you want to replay a game that is a chore to play through even once?
You seem to understand that reviews are inherently subjective. Great. A professional reviewer should also be able to make an objective observation of "This game offers a plethora of post-game content made to extend the user's experience and add to replayability. To fans of the series, this could be very welcome as the content is rich, if you are like me however and find Halo to be as stale and boring as the last one, they won't offer you much." Oh wow, I was able to cover objectivity and my own subjective view. Weird.
Edit: Key word: Value.
I also like the review history of Quarter to Three:
Halo 4: 20
The Darkness 2: 100
SSX: 100
Uh the Darkness 2 is better than Halo 4? I highly doubt this.
Hey, bro. I can sell you a literal mountain of shit for just 5 bucks. PM me.You seem to understand that reviews are inherently subjective. Great. A professional reviewer should also be able to make an objective observation of "This game offers a plethora of post-game content made to extend the user's experience and add to replayability. To fans of the series, this could be very welcome as the content is rich, if you are like me however and find Halo to be as stale and boring as the last one, they won't offer you much." Oh wow, I was able to cover objectivity and my own subjective view. Weird.
Edit: Key word: Value.
Reviews like that are worthless to anyone who doesn't share the exact same taste.To one reviewer, yes.
Hey, bro. I can sell you a literal mountain of shit for just 5 bucks. PM me.
I mean, I know it's poop, and a whole lot of it, but if you happen to like that kind of stuff, there's some real Value in here.
Reviews like that are worthless to anyone who doesn't share the exact same taste.
A decent game critic should be a little more insightful.
I disagree with him on most reviews but I don't feel the need to have my tastes or purchases stroked by mindless children who give bad games an 8 at worst. I appreciate his opinion and his always reasonable complaints. He has a unique perspective on pretty much every review. The kids who get blinded by the scores generally can't parse his written review anyway though.
Well that's the dumbest thing I have read today.
Mark Sanchez is a better QB than Karen Rodgers.
Probably accurate. I watch tons of football and have never even heard of her.
Aggrotek, you are crying about a review and haven't even bothered to read it? Give me a break.
Which part? The one where I play the role of The Salesman From Shit Mountain, or... whaaaThis is a bit ridiculous. I mean you can tell when a game has absolutely NOTHING to offer. Halo 4 is not one of these titles.
"This game offers a plethora of post-game content made to extend the user's experience and add to replayability. To fans of the series, this could be very welcome as the content is rich, if you are like me however and find Halo to be as stale and boring as the last one, they won't offer you much."
This is a bit ridiculous. I mean you can tell when a game has absolutely NOTHING to offer
A review doesn't need to summarize the back-of-the-box features. I assume people can figure out what modes Halo 4 has pretty easily. Like...just read the product description on Amazon.
Especially in a world where hundreds of people are writing reviews of the same game stuff like product descriptions and plot summaries are irrelevant unless they inform the subjective part of the review.
What you are calling the "objective" part of the review doesn't need to be in a review at all. I don't need a movie review to list the running time, the actors and rating unless those figure into the review in a substantive way.
Which part? The one where I play the role of The Salesman From Shit Mountain, or... whaaa
The point being that the parts that "don't need to be in the review at all" need to be thought of in the game's overall score.
1/5 is a hyperbolic score and I give it to games like SUPERMAN.
Cool. You'd be good at IGN but shitty at writing interesting reviews.
So let's get this straight: 9/10 is an extreme and hype driven score, but 1/5 is not an extreme and anti-hype driven score? COOL
Bringing it back to movie reviews, since you like the analogy so much. When reviewing a DVD you get the categories of: Movie, Video, Audio, and Extra content.
It's not that hard to be objective when determining value of content, while still retaining your subjective views.
So let's get this straight: 9/10 is an extreme and hype driven score, but 1/5 is not an extreme and anti-hype driven score? COOL
It was a Halo review written by a man who doesn't like Halo games, presumably for an audience who doesn't like Halo games. In a weird way there may be some value in that.Reviews like that are worthless to anyone who doesn't share the exact same taste.
A decent game critic should be a little more insightful.
If people don't like Halo games they probably know it. If they've never played a Halo game, they're none the wiser for that review.It was a Halo review written by a man who doesn't like Halo games, presumably for an audience who doesn't like Halo games. In a weird way there may be some value in that.
If people don't like Halo games they probably know it. If they've never played a Halo game, they're none the wiser for that review.
I don't like train sims, yet wouldn't find value in an equivalent train sim 1/5 dismissal.
Chicks review wasn't dismissive.
I really wish I followed this whole thread now but after reading the last 10 pages all I can think of are the people who chimed in before reviews came out about Halo fans being so much better than everyone else. They're too above getting outraged over reviews!
Seeing some MS people and Ben Kuchera wailing on twitter about how MetaCritic is broken because Chick's 1/5 score made the mean go down. That's how averages work, guys. Unless you have specific evidence a review is somehow illegimate, suck it up and take the good scores with the bad.