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!

Hynad 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. 

You and all your exaggerations. There are many shooters that don't play like CoD.   Halo does have its own feel, but so do Killzone, Bioshock, Borderlands, etc...  Open your eyes a bit wider, please. 



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

They have thats another point. Reviews have been saying what has changed. They ave changed things but vitally as other people point out, the gameplay of Halo remains. Which is vital to why Halo works. How it plays. 

All other shooters are exactly the same premise. All other shooters. Except for Half Life. Another that doesnt follow the COD formula. Halo and Half Life can exist outside COD where other games like KZ,Crysis,Battlefield,MOH for example all struggle as they follow the COD crowd. COD has its fans. But those who dont like COD are pretty muc Halo or Half Life players and vice versa. 

Halo 4 sounds like a breath of fresh air in a genre stagnated by COD.

He even says in the comments section. Wait till you play BLOPS 2. Its got an amzing campaign and will blow you away.

Really? Really?

I havnt played it yet, but my guess is by his own admission as to what Halo needs is BLOPs 2 is amazing because it has smaller environments, Iron Sights, Loads of scripted events and most importantly mindless combat as opposed to methodical. Oh and its COD.

They are eating hime alive over at EGM. Hes trying to dig himself out by now saying well the multiplayers actually really good, probably a 8.5.

Its a MESSSSSSS



selnor on 02 November 2012
Hynad said:
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. 

You and all your exaggerations. There are many shooters that don't play like CoD.   Halo does have its own feel, but so do Killzone, Bioshock, Borderlands, etc...  Open your eyes a bit wider, please. 

I forgot Biosock and Borderlands. I view them more as RPG/shooters.

Killzone Ive finished and that is very much like playing COD. Just heavier movement.



007BondAgent 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.

 

Because he isn't allowed to have an opinion? plus it's just a review, get over it and just enjoy the game, although i have a feeling your upset because you overhyped this game..



crissindahouse on 02 November 2012

selnor just let this reviewer his opinion and everything is good...the reviewer doesn't like more possible ways to beat the campaign and only wants to have everything extremely scripted so he obviously doesn't love halo and doesn't have so much fun with it which is the reason why he gave halo a “low“ score. people who can read and love what he doesn't like will read the review as positive for them like i read out of it that i will love halo 4. the score just tells his taste and not if it is a 70% game for everyone. it's the same vice versa, he will probably give cod a higher score because his taste seems to be perfect for cod singleplayer. if his score will be 90% and he will say that it's awesome scripted and nicely linear people who love this will understand it's also a 90% game for them and people who hate this kind of game will undestand this review as “don't buy it“ even with a high score.

pretty simple, there is no 100% subject review because everyone has another taste and taste is a big part for the experience you will get out of a game. you can objectively say if it has bugs/glitches or if the soundquality is fucked up (not if the music is awesome or only good for everyone) but not if scripted or not so scripted is the definitely better formula.

the only thing i don't like is if a reviewer says it had to be linear or open to be a good game or that a reviewer wants a game to transform to another game so he would like it even if fans don't want it. a reviewer should just realize it's nothing for him but still a good game because all subjectively points aren't bad in halo (fucked up controls or something)



Around the Network
mantlepiecek on 02 November 2012
selnor said:
Hynad said:
selnor said:

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. 

You and all your exaggerations. There are many shooters that don't play like CoD.   Halo does have its own feel, but so do Killzone, Bioshock, Borderlands, etc...  Open your eyes a bit wider, please. 

I forgot Biosock and Borderlands. I view them more as RPG/shooters.

Killzone Ive finished and that is very much like playing COD. Just heavier movement.

No its not. Maybe the SP campaign if you compare it to the older CoD, but overall there is difference in mp and even sp. Especially in kz2.



D-Joe on 02 November 2012
007BondAgent 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.

 

Because he isn't allowed to have an opinion? plus it's just a review, get over it and just enjoy the game, although i have a feeling your upset because you overhyped this game..

And we can have opinion about his opinion,problem?



http://zh-tw.justin.tv/johndoe1899

Argh_College on 02 November 2012

Some reviews are a joke.

i dont know if they are either Sony or Cod fanboys or both but they are a joke.



007BondAgent on 02 November 2012
D-Joe said:
007BondAgent 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.

 

Because he isn't allowed to have an opinion? plus it's just a review, get over it and just enjoy the game, although i have a feeling your upset because you overhyped this game..

And we can have opinion about his opinion,problem?

No, just seems overhyping a game will end up in disappointment, plus who honostly ever thought this game would get a meta of 96 :|



D-Joe on 02 November 2012
007BondAgent said:
D-Joe said:
007BondAgent 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.

 

Because he isn't allowed to have an opinion? plus it's just a review, get over it and just enjoy the game, although i have a feeling your upset because you overhyped this game..

And we can have opinion about his opinion,problem?

No, just seems overhyping a game will end up in disappointment, plus who honostly ever thought this game would get a meta of 96 :|

So you said "it's just a review" but at the same time you care reviews so much?how is this disappointment?



http://zh-tw.justin.tv/johndoe1899