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!

ZaneWane on 02 November 2012
Aldro said:
007BondAgent said:
D-Joe said:
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?

I don't care about any reviews, i don't even own an xbox so it would be hard for me to really care, and this game isn't a disappointment, just overhyped that's all, people around here were saying OMG! halo 4 should get a meta of 96..

halo 4 is outstanding, but a game has to be more then outstanding to warrant a meta of that.

I was one of those people and I was foolishly beliving it was "more then outstanding to warrant a meta of that" >_>

something tell me you deliberate hype this game to get over 96 just to complain bout it later



Around the Network
D-Joe on 02 November 2012
007BondAgent said:
D-Joe said:
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?

I don't care about any reviews, i don't even own an xbox so it would be hard for me to really care, and this game isn't a disappointment, just overhyped that's all, people around here were saying OMG! halo 4 should get a meta of 96..

halo 4 is outstanding, but a game has to be more then outstanding to warrant a meta of that.

The average prediction of Halo 4 score in here is 91



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

wfz on 02 November 2012
jamesmarkus87 said:
wfz said:

Does it matter, guys? The game is getting positive reviews, it's clearly an amazing title, and no matter where the score goes, we will enjoy the game just as much.

Don't focus too much on metacritic. It's like getting into an argument over the internet on who's penis is larger. The outcome will never affect your sex life and will be of zero consequence.

For many of us (myself included), there's a huge difference between "Universal Acclaim" and "Generally Favorable Reviews".


I'm not sure where you're getting at with this. Is it bad that a few trolls rate the game laughably low? Or is it a big deal that the game's meta drops by 1 or 2 points?



Aldro on 02 November 2012
ZaneWane said:
Aldro said:
007BondAgent said:
D-Joe said:
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?

I don't care about any reviews, i don't even own an xbox so it would be hard for me to really care, and this game isn't a disappointment, just overhyped that's all, people around here were saying OMG! halo 4 should get a meta of 96..

halo 4 is outstanding, but a game has to be more then outstanding to warrant a meta of that.

I was one of those people and I was foolishly beliving it was "more then outstanding to warrant a meta of that" >_>

something tell me you deliberate hype this game to get over 96 just to complain bout it later



Have I even complained at all? What you say work both ways. Maybe you deliberately expected lower than me so you could act surprised. I dont believe that though because its just ridicilous. I mean seriously, lol.

d21lewis on 02 November 2012

Looks like it's going to be a good game. I had my doubts that 343 would be able to do the series justice but it seems that I was worried over nothing.



Around the Network
selnor 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..

Its not about being upset. And the game has beaten its hype. ow often does everyone say on the 4th installment that it the best game in the franchise?

343i have beaten Bungie. Huge!!!

The guy in question isnt giving an opinion. 

He states he is not a COD fan and was not referencing COD wen he talked about those things. Then 2 comments later says " Wait till you see BLOPS 2 it will blow you away. "

Mega ROFL. He is purely trolling, and thats bad for a reviewer. He is blatantly a COD fan, and wants it to play the same. Completely missing the point why Halo fans love Halo and not COD. 

Its like having a guy who ates Final Fantasy altogether review Final Fantasy and say it should be First person like Skyrim and should not contain Japanese manga characters.

Cmon. The guy is proving himself a further douche after the review he wrote in the comments section. I suspect EGM wont have him much longer. 



Argh_College on 02 November 2012

This Halo is gonna be the best Halo for us Gamers, reviewers can go home we dont care about those bunch of noobs that cant kill except on Cod.



selnor on 02 November 2012
pezus said:
selnor said:

Its not about being upset. And the game has beaten its hype. ow often does everyone say on the 4th installment that it the best game in the franchise?

MGS, FF, GTA, CoD, RE going by critics' opinions (since they're the only ones we have for halo at the moment really). Actually, the fourth installment of major series tends to be really good


What? As far as I remember MGS 1 is classed as the pinnacle of that series. GTA 4 we have confirmation that reviews were paid for. And I dont remeber any gaming media saying RE 4 was better than 1 or 2. As for COD. MW 1 was reviewed well, but again I dont remeber the general consensus being it was better tan the WW2 critically acclaimed COD 2. Cod 2 still being my faveourite also.

Final Fantasy 4 wasnt particularly great in comparison to 2 or 3. 6 eclipses everyting though.

Scores aside, did 95% of reviewers say MGS4, COD 4, RE 4 was the best in the franchise?

With the Halo reviews they flat out are stating its the best Halo ever in actual words.



selnor on 02 November 2012
ClassicGamingWizzz said:
selnor said:
pezus said:
selnor said:

Its not about being upset. And the game has beaten its hype. ow often does everyone say on the 4th installment that it the best game in the franchise?

MGS, FF, GTA, CoD, RE going by critics' opinions (since they're the only ones we have for halo at the moment really). Actually, the fourth installment of major series tends to be really good


What? As far as I remember MGS 1 is classed as the pinnacle of that series. GTA 4 we have confirmation that reviews were paid for. And I dont remeber any gaming media saying RE 4 was better than 1 or 2. As for COD. MW 1 was reviewed well, but again I dont remeber the general consensus being it was better tan the WW2 critically acclaimed COD 2. Cod 2 still being my faveourite also.

Final Fantasy 4 wasnt particularly great in comparison to 2 or 3. 6 eclipses everyting though.

Scores aside, did 95% of reviewers say MGS4, COD 4, RE 4 was the best in the franchise?

With the Halo reviews they flat out are stating its the best Halo ever in actual words.

lol the bold part

also halo 4 is not th e fourth game in the series, halo odst is the fourth i think and halo 4 is the sixth rigth?

ODST is an expansion. Hence wy its called Halo 3 : ODST.

Wars is an RTS offshoot. And Reach although a mainline game is a prequel.



selnor on 02 November 2012
pezus said:
selnor said:


What? As far as I remember MGS 1 is classed as the pinnacle of that series. GTA 4 we have confirmation that reviews were paid for. And I dont remeber any gaming media saying RE 4 was better than 1 or 2. As for COD. MW 1 was reviewed well, but again I dont remeber the general consensus being it was better tan the WW2 critically acclaimed COD 2. Cod 2 still being my faveourite also.

Final Fantasy 4 wasnt particularly great in comparison to 2 or 3. 6 eclipses everyting though.

Scores aside, did 95% of reviewers say MGS4, COD 4, RE 4 was the best in the franchise?

With the Halo reviews they flat out are stating its the best Halo ever in actual words.


MGS4 was called the best MGS multiple times in reviews and that is what we're talking about. GTAIV the same. Confirmation that reviews were paid for...from whom? Resident Evil 4 was the best received RE by a lot and won multiple GOTY awards. MW was looked at as a true breakthrough. It revolutionized the whole FPS genre. CoD2 is a great game (and my personal favorite) but critics definitely preferred CoD4 in general.

Edit: Bold - No, but what about Halo 4? Nowhere near that percent. Well, CoD 4 is probably the closest to 95% saying that.


Pretty muc every Halo 4 review Ive read has said this. Except the douche guys review. 

If critics did in fact say this about the other games I stand corrected. Also shocked though. Cause MGS4 was unplayable for me. Resi 4 killed that franchise and COD 4 well its better than MW2 onwards at least for me.

As for GTA4 we now have had 3 sources over the years come forward saying reviewers were paid.