Halo 4 Review Thread! Embargo Lifts on Thurdays 1st November!

[MB1025]

ishiki said:

If iron sights are a must if you're playing a FPS. Then obviously you're going to rate it lower, and I don't see the problem with it.

But, if before reviewing you don't like a fundamental aspect of that game. Should that person be allowed to do a professional review?

Runa reviewed FFXIII-2 on this site, Despite not liking the original at all. etc.
But then again Gamrreview isn't hehe.

there's people that would rate halo low because it's not their cup of tea. Just like people rate movies low because it's not their cup of tea and it shows in rotten tomatoes.

I think for reviews to show the broadest opinions, they should have people review games that don't like certain things with the series and do this for all games. All scores will probably drop, but a lot of review sites send reviewers that already expect to like the game particularly with AAA games.

This will cause people giving positive scores, to say why a certain negative aspect from other people doesn't bother them, but why it could bother certain people. Instead of just looking at a game foaming out the mouth.

Currently reviewers create a circle jerk where some AAA title gets an inflated score. (not saying halo4 is one of them).

Yeah but here is the thing. If YOU need iron sites and the game doesn't have them you don't mark it because of that. You judge what the game gives you. That would be like me giving you a chocolate candy bar to eat and I ask you how it was. Then you tell me it should have carmel in it when all I wanted to know was how the candy bar is that I gave you.  We all know the shooting mechanics in this game are fine. It really hasn't changed since the first Halo. So why are we marking off for something that has never been in the game and never will be.

Maybe I should review Final Fantasy and say I give this game a 7 out of 10 because it should be a thrid person shooter instead of an RPG.