By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

Proclus on 02 November 2012

Anyways, lower or higher metascore than other Halo games, it's so far getting "universal acclaim" and is still rated higher than >most
It also shows that even though they had a enermous budget and publisher backing that 343i is an extremely competent developer. I can only hope that they continue to serve Halo with grace, and that they hopefully even get the chance to branch out and create an original IP, even though it is a bit unlikely.



Around the Network
selnor on 02 November 2012
ishiki said:
MB1025 said:
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 is 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 on 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.

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.


Its obvious the reviewer was not critising the game. He was plainly being a COD fanboy. He critized a game for having large open environments and methodical combat. Seriously metodical combat. He critized the game for not holding his hand and providing scripted events. He wants a nice easy game like COD. Where theres one simple route where he can stay still behind a crate and pop out every once in awhile and look down his beloved iron sights to get through a mission. 

No way in hell is Halo ever gonna be the boringly fickle. 

Its disgusting that reviewers are aloud by these companies to do this. Especially when most are saying its the best shooter in years.



GameOver22 on 02 November 2012
kowenicki said:
GameOver22 said:
kowenicki said:

He says it needs to be more COD like and then says it needs some fucking soul.... Isn't that a contradiction.  The man is a pillock. 

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).


He says yes and no and then describes COD.

Seems like some of the descriptions belong to COD (iron sights, scripted events, number of bullets to kill an enemy) while others don't (better objectives, better environments, better level design, less backtracking). The later seem like general areas of improvement rather than descriptions of COD. Basically, saying all the descriptions belong to COD seems like its putting words in his mouth. How do we know (from the comment) if he thinks COD has better level deisign, better environments, etc?



Proclus on 02 November 2012

Hmm, I might have overlooked a game, someone might want to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Halo 4 is the second highest reviewed (so far) shooter since holiday 2010, with only Reach being higher?

*Note: I looked at other high quality franchises such as Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Socom, Killzone & Crysis.



selnor on 02 November 2012
GameOver22 said:
kowenicki said:
GameOver22 said:
kowenicki said:

He says it needs to be more COD like and then says it needs some fucking soul.... Isn't that a contradiction.  The man is a pillock. 

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).


He says yes and no and then describes COD.

Seems like some of the descriptions belong to COD (iron sights, scripted events, number of bullets to kill an enemy) while others don't (better objectives, better environments, better level design, less backtracking). The later seem like general areas of improvement rather than descriptions of COD. Basically, saying all the descriptions belong to COD seems like its putting words in his mouth. How do we know (from the comment) if he thinks COD has better level deisign, better environments, etc?


Its obvious the reviewer was not critising the game. He was plainly being a COD fanboy. He critized a game for having large open environments and methodical combat. Seriously metodical combat. He critized the game for not holding his hand and providing scripted events. He wants a nice easy game like COD. Where theres one simple route where he can stay still behind a crate and pop out every once in awhile and look down his beloved iron sights to get through a mission. 

No way in hell is Halo ever gonna be the boringly fickle. 

Its disgusting that reviewers are aloud by these companies to do this. Especially when most are saying its the best shooter in years.



Around the Network
GameOver22 on 02 November 2012
selnor said:
GameOver22 said:
kowenicki said:
GameOver22 said:
kowenicki said:

He says it needs to be more COD like and then says it needs some fucking soul.... Isn't that a contradiction.  The man is a pillock. 

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).


He says yes and no and then describes COD.

Seems like some of the descriptions belong to COD (iron sights, scripted events, number of bullets to kill an enemy) while others don't (better objectives, better environments, better level design, less backtracking). The later seem like general areas of improvement rather than descriptions of COD. Basically, saying all the descriptions belong to COD seems like its putting words in his mouth. How do we know (from the comment) if he thinks COD has better level deisign, better environments, etc?

 

Its obvious the reviewer was not critising the game. He was plainly being a COD fanboy. He critized a game for having large open environments and methodical combat. Seriously metodical combat. He critized the game for not holding his hand and providing scripted events. He wants a nice easy game like COD. Where theres one simple route where he can stay still behind a crate and pop out every once in awhile and look down his beloved iron sights to get through a mission. 

No way in hell is Halo ever gonna be the boringly fickle. 

Its disgusting that reviewers are aloud by these companies to do this. Especially when most are saying its the best shooter in years.

 

He actually criticized it for having unnecessary open environment and slow methodical combat. I'm not saying his review is right. I just think some of the characterizations of the review have been disingenuous and clearly intended to create a straw-man argument that's easy to criticize.



selnor on 02 November 2012
GameOver22 said:
selnor said:
GameOver22 said:
kowenicki said:
GameOver22 said:
kowenicki said:

He says it needs to be more COD like and then says it needs some fucking soul.... Isn't that a contradiction.  The man is a pillock. 

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).


He says yes and no and then describes COD.

Seems like some of the descriptions belong to COD (iron sights, scripted events, number of bullets to kill an enemy) while others don't (better objectives, better environments, better level design, less backtracking). The later seem like general areas of improvement rather than descriptions of COD. Basically, saying all the descriptions belong to COD seems like its putting words in his mouth. How do we know (from the comment) if he thinks COD has better level deisign, better environments, etc?

 

Its obvious the reviewer was not critising the game. He was plainly being a COD fanboy. He critized a game for having large open environments and methodical combat. Seriously metodical combat. He critized the game for not holding his hand and providing scripted events. He wants a nice easy game like COD. Where theres one simple route where he can stay still behind a crate and pop out every once in awhile and look down his beloved iron sights to get through a mission. 

No way in hell is Halo ever gonna be the boringly fickle. 

Its disgusting that reviewers are aloud by these companies to do this. Especially when most are saying its the best shooter in years.

 

He actually criticized it for having unnecessary open environment and slow methodical combat. I'm not saying his review is right. I just think some of the characterizations of the review have been disingenuous and clearly intended to create a straw-man argument that's easy to criticize.

Halo has always been like that. Thats the formula. Thats the point of Halo. Halo is the last shooter left that is different from the rest. And we love it because it plays this way. 

Thats the point. 



GameOver22 on 02 November 2012
Proclus said:
Hmm, I might have overlooked a game, someone might want to correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Halo 4 is the second highest reviewed (so far) shooter since holiday 2010, with only Reach being higher?

*Note: I looked at other high quality franchises such as Call of Duty, Medal of Honor, Socom, Killzone & Crysis.

Sounds about right  although I wouldn't be surprised to see it drop a couple of points. On average, it seems that later reviews are more negative.



fillet on 02 November 2012
smroadkill15 said:
Nsanity said:


Like I said earlier, a fucking toolbag. 


You people trying to dice this persons view into shreds don't really have a leg to stand on. What he said was all valid and his interpretation. Halo DOES have some open spaces that don't need to be quite so open and don't add anything at all by being so open. That's not even arguable.

His other views are all pretty fair comment, I can't say that it's fair to put the other stuff in a review because reviews should be subjective and are to give people an idea about the game and not be tailored to a specific person's wishes, so it's a bit annoying to read.

So yeah, to have a problem with his view is just silly and says more about you than him.



GameOver22 on 02 November 2012
selnor said:
GameOver22 said:
selnor said:
GameOver22 said:
kowenicki said:
GameOver22 said:
kowenicki said:

He says it needs to be more COD like and then says it needs some fucking soul.... Isn't that a contradiction.  The man is a pillock. 

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).


He says yes and no and then describes COD.

Seems like some of the descriptions belong to COD (iron sights, scripted events, number of bullets to kill an enemy) while others don't (better objectives, better environments, better level design, less backtracking). The later seem like general areas of improvement rather than descriptions of COD. Basically, saying all the descriptions belong to COD seems like its putting words in his mouth. How do we know (from the comment) if he thinks COD has better level deisign, better environments, etc?

 

Its obvious the reviewer was not critising the game. He was plainly being a COD fanboy. He critized a game for having large open environments and methodical combat. Seriously metodical combat. He critized the game for not holding his hand and providing scripted events. He wants a nice easy game like COD. Where theres one simple route where he can stay still behind a crate and pop out every once in awhile and look down his beloved iron sights to get through a mission. 

No way in hell is Halo ever gonna be the boringly fickle. 

Its disgusting that reviewers are aloud by these companies to do this. Especially when most are saying its the best shooter in years.

 

He actually criticized it for having unnecessary open environment and slow methodical combat. I'm not saying his review is right. I just think some of the characterizations of the review have been disingenuous and clearly intended to create a straw-man argument that's easy to criticize.

Halo has always been like that. Thats the formula. Thats the point of Halo. Halo is the last shooter left that is different from the rest. And we love it because it plays this way. 

Thats the point. 

That's perfectly fine, but its also fair to ask a game to innovate. Now, iron sights and such isn't much of an innovation, and that's where I think the review is wrong, but at the same time, the same formula eventually does get old, and I think its fair to ask a game to provide something new.