Exactly. The reason why I used Uncahrted 2 was not to start a war, but to show people how that game wasn't a 10. However a bunch of reviewers who are biased reviewed the game and decided not to point out flaws and if they did decided not to negativly mark them for it.

I don't care what you want in the game. I care what is in the game and how good it is. So many people try to get themselves over in these reviews instead of just reviewing the game properly.

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).

Truth is the 10/10 scores don't particularly bother me because I don't put much stock on the numerical scores, especially when a lot of places operate on the 5 star scale or only grade in one point increments (Eurogamer...I think and IGN last year). In these cases, rounding up could result in a 10/10. What bothers me, as I said before, is when they don't even attempt to criticize the game. There's always room for improvement, and critics should at least integrate that fact into their reviews.

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.

That's a difficult question and one that doesn't have an easy answer. I think it depends on the intended audience for the review., but the problem with this, is that there's no mutually exclusive category of gamers that prefer a certain genre. For example, its probably a poor choice to review an RPG as if the audience is comprised of FPS fans. At the same time, there is an overlap between FPS and RPG fans, but this group of RPG/FPS fans is probably quite different from the hardcore RPG fans. As you can guess, the big question is who you're writing for, which isn't an easy question.

it's a critisicm if you think it would benefit from iron sites.

If you're comparing Halo to other FPS, what does halo not have compared to other FPS? Iron Sights. If a person consistently thinks every entry of halo is lacking because of lack of iron sights his opinion is compelely valid for all the games. I mean that wasn't his only critisicm.Maybe he was fishing for hits. He probably went into the game expecting to hate it. But I'm sure some reviewers went into the game expecting to love it, which can cause you to hate it or love it more than you actually do.

Now I think that guy's a douche.I think halo 4 looks great. And I don't think Halo should get iron sights. But, if he thinks halo should that's his opinion he can rate it whatever he feels is appropriate.

WTF? Halo shall never have iron sights. Its an FPS and iron sights are no more than another option. Unfortunately, if iron sights is added to Halo (Which is unthinkably stupid), it will have a HUGE effect on the gameplay. Halo will not be Halo.

Bottom line, iron sights are iron sights. Not a requirement but an option. Whoever says that Halo needs iron sights is just an idiot.

i said it yesterday and i say it today, every real halo fan has to be happy about the negative points of some reviews because those are exactly what most halo fans don't want to get changed too much. we got new enemies, we got a new composer and a different soundtrack style, we got a whole new kind of experience with spartan ops which those reviewers couldn't play exept maybe a very small part and we got some smaller changes in multi-player.

that are enough changes and not less as most other game series get. and funnily, those which get a huge change like resi get bad reviews for too many changes haha.

those who rate halo 4 now not so great and want to get iron sight or stuff like that are people who don't want to play the halo which halo fans want, they want to see halo as a whole new game if they want those changes. it's good for them if they want it but halo fans don't so 343i did exactly the right even if they get few percen lower metascore because of that.

and those who want changes to get a new cod in the future just with aliens (more scipts, iron sight and so on) should maybe hope for a completely new game series and shouldn't play halo. iron sight in halo would mean no running/jumping to an area and shooting at the enemy 100 meters at the same time anymore so it wouldn't be mainline halo anymore.

Not really a contradiction. Saying it needs to be more like COD in some respects does not mean it needs to be like COD in all respects (he does say yes and no in response to the question).

Actually the thread is surprisingly calm and collected, nobody trying to stoke the fires here it seems.