Quantcast
I played Halo Reach for some time now. Reviews are broken.

Forums - Gaming Discussion - I played Halo Reach for some time now. Reviews are broken.

I think reviews are indeed broken, but just the other way around:

The game is probably way overrated.

Thing is: Halo Reach is very similar to GTA IV - a game so hyped that hardly any game reviewer even considered giving a score less than 90%, because with all the hype you know every reviewer will give ridiculous high scores, and it always looks strange if your score is completely different than that of all the other reviews.

Lots of gamers however soon expressed criticism and complained that the game is way overrated. Now the review score of GTA IV on metacritic is 98, the user score however is less than 80.

Halo 3 is similar: Metacritic review score 94, metacritic user score 76. And Halo Reach will probably be similar as well. If a game is extremely hyped for like GTA IV, the Halo series or GT5, then review scores are usually overrated.



Around the Network

I agree, reviews are broken, they  very often score a game way too high.



If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

My favorite site for reviews?  Kotaku.

Why?  No scores.  Just reviews.

See the problem here isn't the REVIEWS, its the scores.  But every site has different score standards, so that makes sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings not very reflective of how different review sites felt about the game.

For instance, Jeff Gerstmann gave it 4 out of 5 stars.  Since they don't give half stars, it would take a game that they felt was flawless to get a 5.  Based on his actual REVIEW, he simply felt that the Halo formula was bit worn.  He's completely entitled to that opinion, but ON THAT SITE this is still a really good score.  But transfer that to Metacritic or Gamerankings and now its a 8/10 or 80/100.  So it just went from a game that was one step down of flawless to a B- when that is not at all what Giantbomb intended.

So, long story short, calm down.  Relax.  Enjoy the game.  Most importantly, keep sites like Metacritic and Gamerankings in perspective.  Check the sig.



I guess that a 93 is probably a bit of a low score by todays reviewing standards for big budget shooters.  I think that you have a legitimate reason for being upset.



Proud member of the SONIC SUPPORT SQUAD

Tag "Sorry man. Someone pissed in my Wheaties."

"There are like ten games a year that sell over a million units."  High Voltage CEO -  Eric Nofsinger

one or 2 weapons? i've seen hell we've all seen games get solid 10's or 5-5 worse. hell we've seen them get 3's for more then just 2 gun's! everybody know's MW2 didn't diserve any of the praise it got in comparison to Reach.

now the scores arn't bad, but the logic behind the scores makes them bad!

and yes the reveiw system has been broken for some time now. it's like fan boys they don't bother me anymore. i get what i want and if it's bad then i've learned a lesson.



Around the Network
libellule said:

"""Halo 3 got a 94 on meta. How can Halo Reach score lower according to different reviewers when it brings more than Halo 3?"""

==> because Halo 3 was OVERrated

Time for you to make another thread about Halo3 review score being unfair ... Oh, wait, I suppose this was not a problem to you ...

/thread

Nope your flat out wrong....all you have to do is actually play it to figure that out.

OT: I completely agree, I think tons of reviewers are rating it low just to get hits (cause they know an absolute TON of Haters and hardcore fans alike are gonna look at the reviews)



kjj4t9rdad said:

I agree reviews are broken.  But it is not because Halo:Reach is scored too low.  This game could be total garbage and it would still get a meta score in the 90's on hype alone.  A lot of reviews are biased, unbalanced and in some cases I'm sure someone receives benefits for favorable reviews.  There are some reviews that are fair and informative, but you really have to look at the reviews to find one. 


THIS!!!



yo_john117 said:
libellule said:

"""Halo 3 got a 94 on meta. How can Halo Reach score lower according to different reviewers when it brings more than Halo 3?"""

==> because Halo 3 was OVERrated

Time for you to make another thread about Halo3 review score being unfair ... Oh, wait, I suppose this was not a problem to you ...

/thread

Nope your flat out wrong....all you have to do is actually play it to figure that out.

OT: I completely agree, I think tons of reviewers are rating it low just to get hits (cause they know an absolute TON of Haters and hardcore fans alike are gonna look at the reviews)


Surely if "tons" of reviewers were rating it low it would have a lower Metascore?  What do you mean by low?  The lowest I've seen is 4 out of 5 stars, which is hardly low as I define it.  Sure, on metacritic that becomes 80 out of 100, but that's metacritic's fault and simply shows some of the issues with their approach.

I mean, are there any 6/10 or such reviews?  I haven't seen any - I mean proper reviews not some blog wirtten by a PS3 (or Wii to be politically correct) fan.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

uh oh its down to 92 now



The biggest fail here is that certain people in this forum are saying that the campaign is short and unmemorable, but they haven't played it, let alone beat it. I just started the 4th mission out of ten total,and around the 3 hour mark. So far this story has been amazing.Even more detailed than previous Halo games. I can't wait to keep playing today.